`
`
`
`
`Filed on behalf of Intellectual Ventures II LLC
`By: Herbert D. Hart III
`Sharon A. Hwang
`McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd.
`500 West Madison Street
`Chicago, Illinois 60661
`Tel.: (312) 775-8000
`Fax: (312) 775-8100
`Email: hhart@mcandrews-ip.com
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`ERICSSON INC. AND TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET
`LM ERICSSON,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC
`Patent Owner
`______________
`
`Case IPR2014-01195
`Patent No. 7,787,431
`______________
`
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2014-01195
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ....................................................................... 1 
`
`THE PETITION SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE OF
`PROCEDURAL DEFECTS ............................................................................ 2 
`
`A.  Petitioner Does Not Specify The Real Party-In-Interest ........................ 2 
`
`B. 
`
`Petitioner Improperly Circumvents The 60-Page Limit ......................... 3 
`
`III.  THE ’431 PATENT ......................................................................................... 5 
`
`IV.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ISSUES ............................................................ 10 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`“bandwidth” .......................................................................................... 11 
`
`“core-band” ........................................................................................... 12 
`
`“primary preamble” .............................................................................. 14 
`
`“peak-to-average ratio” ......................................................................... 16 
`
`V. 
`
`THE PETITION SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE PETITIONER
`FAILED TO MEET ITS BURDEN UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 314(A) ............... 17 
`
`A.  Challenge #1: Petitioner Has Not Shown That Any Of Claims
`8-11 Or 18-21 Is Unpatentable Over Li, Yamaura And Zhuang ......... 20 
`
`1. 
`
`Yamaura Combined With Li Does Not Teach The
`Recited “OFDMA Core-Band” ................................................. 20 
`
`a. 
`
`b. 
`
`c. 
`
`Li Alone Does Not Disclose Either A Core-Band
`Or The Use Of Variable Channel Bandwidth ................ 20 
`
`Petitioner Fails To Show That Yamaura Teaches
`An OFDMA Core-Band Or The Use Of Variable
`Channel Bandwidth ........................................................ 22 
`
`Petitioner Fails To Explain Why Yamaura And Li
`Would Be Combined To Render Obvious The
`Claimed “OFDMA Core-Band” ..................................... 24 
`
`i
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2014-01195
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`Yamaura Does Not Teach Or Suggest The Recited
`“Primary Preamble” .................................................................. 26 
`
`Yamaura, Alone Or In Combination With Zhuang, Does
`Not Teach The “Properties” Feature Of The Primary
`Preamble .................................................................................... 29 
`
`Petitioner Failed To Show Any Reason, Motivation, Or
`Suggestion To Combine Li, Yamaura, And Zhuang As
`To Claims 8-11 Or 18-21 .......................................................... 33 
`
`B.  Challenge #2: Petitioner Has Not Shown That Any Of Claims 1,
`2, 12, Or 22 Is Unpatentable Over Li, Yamaura, Zhuang, And
`Beta ....................................................................................................... 35 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`Yamaura Combined With Li Does Not Teach The
`Recited “Core-Band” ................................................................ 35 
`
`Yamaura Does Not Teach Or Suggest The Use Of The
`Recited “Primary Preamble” ..................................................... 37 
`
`Yamaura, Alone Or In Combination With Zhuang, Does
`Not Teach The “Properties” Feature Of The Primary
`Preamble .................................................................................... 37 
`
`Petitioner Failed To Show Any Reason, Motivation, Or
`Suggestion To Combine Li, Yamaura, Zhuang, and Beta
`As To Claims 1, 2, 12, or 22 ..................................................... 38 
`
`C.  Challenge #3: Petitioner Has Not Shown That Any Of Claims
`8-11 And 18-21 Is Unpatentable Over Yamaura, Mody, Nobilet,
`And Popovic ......................................................................................... 38 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`Yamaura Combined With Li Does Not Teach The
`Recited “OFDMA Core-Band” ................................................. 39 
`
`Yamaura Does Not Teach Or Suggest The Use Of The
`Recited “Primary Preamble” ..................................................... 39 
`
`Yamaura, Alone Or In Combination With Mody, Nobilet,
`And Popovic Does Not Teach The “Properties” Feature
`Of The Primary Preamble ......................................................... 40 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2014-01195
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`Petitioner Failed To Show Any Reason, Motivation, Or
`Suggestion To Combine Li, Yamaura, Mody, Nobilet,
`and Popovic As To Claims 8-11 or 18-21 ................................ 43 
`
`The Board Should Deny Challenge #3 Because It
`Duplicates Challenge #1 With Respect To Claims 8-11
`And 18-21 ................................................................................. 43 
`
`D.  Challenge #4: Petitioner Has Not Shown That Any Of Claims 1,
`2, 12, Or 22 Is Unpatentable Over Li, Yamaura, Mody, Nobilet,
`Popovic, And Beta ................................................................................ 44 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`Yamaura Combined With Li Does Not Teach The
`Recited “Core-Band” ................................................................ 45 
`
`Yamaura Does Not Teach Or Suggest The Use Of The
`“Primary Preamble” As Claimed .............................................. 45 
`
`Yamaura, Alone Or In Combination With Mody, Nobilet,
`And Popovic Does Not Teach The Recited “Properties”
`Of The Primary Preamble ......................................................... 45 
`
`Petitioner Failed To Show Any Reason, Motivation, Or
`Suggestion To Combine Li, Yamaura, Mody, Nobilet,
`Popovic, and Beta As To Claims 1, 2, 12, And 21 ................... 46 
`
`The Board Should Deny Challenge #4 Because It
`Duplicates Challenge #2 With Respect To Claims 1, 2,
`12, And 22 ................................................................................. 47 
`
`VI.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 48 
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2014-01195
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases 
`A.C. Dispensing Equipment Inc. v. Prince Castle LLC,
`IPR2014-00511, Decision Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing (Paper No.
`16, Sep. 10, 2014) ................................................................................................... 5
`
`Broadcom Corp. v. Emulex Corp.,
`732 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................ 26
`
`BSP Software v. Motio, Inc., IPR2013-00307, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29,
`2013) ..................................................................................................................... 25
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. C-Cation Technologies, LLC,
`IPR2014-00454, Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`(Paper No. 12, Aug. 29, 2014) ............................................................................... 5
`
`Google v. EveryMD, IPR2014-000347,
`Decision Denying Institution (Paper 9 at 19, May 22, 2014) .............................. 36
`
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc.,
`504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................................ 10
`
`InTouch Technologies, Inc. v. VGO Communications,
`751 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................ 25, 30, 40
`
`Irdeto Access, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp.,
`383 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................ 14
`
`Kara Tech. Inc. v. Stamps.com Inc.,
`582 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................ 12
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................. 19
`
`Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive. Cas. Ins. Co.,
`CBM2012-00003, Paper 7 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2012) ........................................... 44
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................ 10
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2014-01195
`
`
`
`Power-One, Inc. v. Artesyn Technologies, Inc.,
`599 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................ 34
`
`
`
`
`
`SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc.,
`358 F.3d 870 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .............................................................................. 12
`
`Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex Inc.,
`655 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................ 19
`
`Wowza Media Systems, LLC v. Adobe Systems, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00054, Paper No. 12 (P.T.A.B. April 8, 2013) ..................................... 32
`
`Statutes 
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2) ............................................................................................. 1, 3
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. §103(a) .................................................................................................... 17
`
`35 U.S.C. 316(b) ........................................................................................................ 3
`
`Other Authorities 
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14,
`2012) ............................................................................................................... 10, 36
`
`Rules 
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 10
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) ............................................................................................ 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24 ....................................................................................................... 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ..................................................................................................... 1, 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2014-01195
`
`I.
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`The Board should deny the Petition and decline to institute inter partes
`
`
`
`
`
`review of claims 1, 2, 8-12, and 18-22 of U.S. Patent No. 7,787,431 (“the ’431
`
`patent,” Exhibit 1001) for at least three reasons:
`
`1.
`
`Petitioner fails to properly identify the real parties-in-interest, as
`
`required by 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.8;
`
`2.
`
`Petitioner improperly circumvents the sixty-page limit by including
`
`argument on the unnumbered Title Page and by incorporating by reference
`
`multiple pages of an expert declaration (“the Haas Declaration,” Exhibit 1012) to
`
`support conclusory statements in the Petition; and
`
`3.
`
`Petitioner fails to establish, under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.104(b)(4), that there is a reasonable likelihood that any of claims 1, 2, 8-12, and
`
`18-22 (“the challenged claims”) are unpatentable. Indeed, Petitioner’s cited prior
`
`art references, alone or in combination, do not disclose key elements of the
`
`challenged claims, such as the “OFDMA core-band” feature or the “primary
`
`preamble” for or sufficient to enable “radio operations,” including the claimed
`
`properties relating to autocorrelation, cross-correlation, and small peak-to-average
`
`ratio.
`
`Indeed, none of the cited prior art references even pertains to variable
`
`bandwidth OFDMA systems, as claimed. Nor does Petitioner identify any reason
`
`1
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2014-01195
`
`
`
`
`or motivation that one of ordinary skill in the art would have to combine the prior
`
`
`
`art in a manner that would lead to the specific combination of elements recited in
`
`challenged claims 1, 2, 8-12, and 18-22. Instead, contrary to well-established
`
`Federal Circuit law, Petitioner simply cobbles together references that teach a
`
`limitation, or worse, one part of a limitation of the asserted claims, without
`
`explaining why a person of skill in the art would have combined such references to
`
`achieve the combination recited in the challenged claims. At most, Petitioner
`
`offers conclusory reasons for combining prior art references in an effort to meet a
`
`particular limitation. But Petitioner nowhere even attempts to explain why a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time would have combined the
`
`prior art to achieve the claimed combination of elements.
`
`To the extent that the Board nevertheless institutes inter partes review, it
`
`should find Challenge #3 redundant of Challenge #1, and Challenge #4 redundant
`
`of Challenge #2. The Board should also reject Petitioner’s erroneous constructions
`
`of the claim terms “bandwidth,” “core-band,” and “primary preamble.”
`
`II. THE PETITION SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE OF
`PROCEDURAL DEFECTS
`A.
`Page 1 of the Petition improperly identifies “Ericsson” as the real party-in-
`
`Petitioner Does Not Specify The Real Party-In-Interest
`
`interest. However, to Patent Owner’s knowledge, there is no legal entity known
`
`simply as “Ericsson.” There are, however, at least 33 legal corporate entities
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2014-01195
`
`
`
`
`whose names include the word “Ericsson.” While Petitioner identified “Ericsson”
`
`
`
`as shorthand for both Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson in an
`
`argument improperly included on the unnumbered title page of the Petition, it is
`
`unclear whether Petitioner intended those entities to be identified as real parties-in-
`
`interest or whether the argument on the unnumbered title page was even intended
`
`to be part of the Petition. The Petition should be denied or, at the very least,
`
`corrected to identify the real party-in-interest. See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2); 37
`
`C.F.R. §42.8.
`
`B.
`Petitioner Improperly Circumvents The 60-Page Limit
`A petition for inter partes review may not exceed 60 pages. 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.24. Consistent with the considerations stated in 35 U.S.C. 316(b), the 60-page
`
`limit has been set to further the goals of “integrity of the patent system, the
`
`efficient administration of the Office, and the ability to complete the trials timely.”
`
`See 77 Fed. Reg. 48612, 48620 (Aug. 14, 2012). “[A] 60-page limit is considered
`
`sufficient in all but exceptional cases and is consistent with the considerations
`
`provided in 35 U.S.C. 316(b).” Id. at 48621.
`
`The Petition, as filed, includes 60 numbered pages. However, Petitioner
`
`attempts to improperly incorporate by reference multiple pages of argument from
`
`the 126-page Haas Declaration as support for conclusory statements in the Petition
`
`relating to claim 8.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2014-01195
`
`
`
`
`Claim 8 recites in part: “[a] cellular base station comprising circuitry
`
`
`
`configured to transmit a broadcast channel in an [] OFDMA core-band, wherein
`
`the core-band is substantially centered at an operating center frequency and the
`
`core-band includes a first plurality of subcarrier groups.” Exhibit 1001, 11:54-59.
`
`The Petition states, without explanation, that “Yamaura discloses that control
`
`signals are transmitted in a broadcast preamble, which utilizes one, two, or three
`
`subcarriers substantially centered at an operating frequency for use as a broadcast
`
`channel carrying control signaling in Figs. 22, 16, and 20, respectively. See ERIC-
`
`1012, ¶ 40-41.” Petition at 23-24. By that citation, Petitioner relies on nearly three
`
`pages of arguments and figures appearing in paragraphs 40-41 of the Haas
`
`Declaration. Moreover, Petitioner concedes that it intentionally incorporated eight
`
`additional pages from the Haas Declaration, noting that “Figs. 22, 16, and 20 are
`
`presented in the discussion of claim element 8.1 at ERIC-1012, Challenge #1, pp.
`
`51-58 along with disclosure regarding Fig. 16.” If Petitioner’s arguments were
`
`actually developed within the body of the Petition rather than incorporated by
`
`reference in the supporting declaration, the Petition would have significantly
`
`exceeded the 60-page limit, i.e., by more than eleven (11) pages.
`
`The Board has recognized that the “practice of citing the Declaration to
`
`support conclusory statements that are not otherwise supported in the Petition
`
`amounts to incorporation by reference.” A.C. Dispensing Equipment Inc. v. Prince
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2014-01195
`
`
`
`
`Castle LLC, IPR2014-00511, Decision Denying Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`
`
`
`at 6-7 (Paper No. 16, Sep. 10, 2014). Similarly, in refusing to consider arguments
`
`from a declaration in Cisco Systems, Inc. v. C-Cation Technologies, LLC,
`
`IPR2014-00454, the Board stated that "in the Petition before us, incorporation by
`
`reference of numerous arguments from Dr. Roy’s 250-page Declaration into the
`
`Petition serves to circumvent the page limits imposed on a petition for inter partes
`
`review, while imposing on our time by asking us to sift through over 250 pages of
`
`Dr. Roy’s Declaration (including numerous pages of claim charts) to locate the
`
`specific arguments corresponding to the numerous paragraphs cited to support the
`
`Petitioner’s assertions.” Cisco Systems, Inc. v. C-Cation Technologies, LLC,
`
`IPR2014-00454, Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review at 10 (Paper
`
`No. 12, Aug. 29, 2014). Petitioner has employed the same tactic here to
`
`circumvent the page limit.
`
`III. THE ’431 PATENT
`The ‘431 patent, entitled “Methods and Apparatus for Multi-Carrier
`
`Communications with Variable Channel Bandwidth,” addresses the significant
`
`challenges associated with the nomadic nature of wireless communications. The
`
`inventors recognized
`
`that “[w]hile
`
`it
`
`is
`
`ideal for a broadband wireless
`
`communication device to be able to roam from one part of the world to another,
`
`wireless communication spectra are heavily regulated and controlled by individual
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2014-01195
`
`
`
`
`countries or regional authorities” and that it “also seems inevitable that each
`
`
`
`country or region will have its own different spectral band for broadband wireless
`
`communications.” Exhibit 1001, 1:32-35. In fact, “even within a country or
`
`region, a wireless operator may own and operate on a broadband spectrum that is
`
`different in frequency and bandwidth from other operators.” Id., 1:35-38.
`
`The claimed inventions allow a broadband wireless communication device
`
`(e.g., a smartphone) to effectively roam from one variable bandwidth system to
`
`another through the transmission of a “primary preamble” within a “core-band”
`
`that reliably identifies the bandwidth available for use. As disclosed in the ’431
`
`patent, the variable channel bandwidth is constructed by “adjusting the number of
`
`usable subcarriers.” Id., 1:30-32, 4:26-29. “The structure of a subchannel
`
`[composed of subcarriers] is designed in a certain way to meet the requirements of
`
`FEC (Forward Error Correction) coding and, therefore, should be maintained
`
`unchanged.” Id., 4:29-32. Nevertheless, “the number of subchannels can be
`
`adjusted to scale the [variable bandwidth (VB) wireless] channel in accordance
`
`with the given bandwidth.” Id., 4:32-34.
`
`The specific signaling and control methods needed to operate in a variable
`
`bandwidth environment are realized through the use of the core-band. Id., 4:64-67.
`
`“[The] core-band, substantially centered at the operating center frequency, is
`
`defined as a frequency segment that is not greater than the smallest operating
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2014-01195
`
`
`
`
`channel bandwidth among all the possible spectral bands that the receiver is
`
`
`
`designed to operate with.” Id., 4:67-5:4. The core-band is used by a mobile station
`
`entering a geographic area “to initiate communication and obtain essential
`
`information and subsequently switch” a mobile station’s operating bandwidth to
`
`the “full operating bandwidth of the area for the remainder of the communication.”
`
`Id., Abstract. This allows “a broadband wireless communication device to be able
`
`to roam from one part of the world to another.”
`
`FIG. 6 of the ’431 patent (reproduced below) illustrates an exemplary
`
`system intended to work at 5, 6, 8, and 10 MHz.
`
`
`In this exemplary system, the core-band has a width of 4 MHz, which is smaller
`
`than the widths of the possible operating channel bandwidths (5, 6, 8, and 10
`
`MHz). Additionally, the core-band is substantially centered in one of the possible
`
`operating channel bandwidths. Id., 5:1-4.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2014-01195
`
`
`
`
`While the core-band identifies the physical “frequency segment” through
`
`
`
`which the bandwidth information is sent, the actual bandwidth information is sent
`
`via a preamble called a “primary preamble.” As depicted in FIG. 8 (reproduced
`
`below), “a preamble, called an auxiliary preamble (AP), which occupies the
`
`sideband (SB), is combined with the EP [primary preamble] to form a full
`
`bandwidth preamble (FP) (e.g., appended
`
`in
`
`the frequency domain or
`
`superimposed in the time domain).” Id., 5:36-39.
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2014-01195
`
`
`
`
`The “primary preamble (EP), is designed to only occupy the CB, as depicted
`
`
`
`in FIG. 8,” and is alone “sufficient for the basic radio operations.” Id., 5:19-22.
`
`The specification explains that “[s]uch a basic radio operation, for example,
`
`constitutes the primary state of operation.” Id., 5:13-15. These basic radio
`
`operations, sent using the primary preamble, allow a mobile station entering into a
`
`specific network and initially transmitting at the primary state to transition to a
`
`normal full-bandwidth operation. Id., 5:15-18.
`
`The ‘431 patent provides that the primary preamble is readily and reliably
`
`identified when it possesses specific properties such as:
`
`1. Having an autocorrelation that exhibits a large correlation peak with
`
`respect to sidelobes. Id., 5:28-29.
`
`2. Having a cross-correlation with other primary preambles with a small
`
`cross-correlation coefficient with respect to the power of the other
`
`primary preambles. Id., 5:30-32.
`
`3. Having a peak-to-average ratio that is relatively small. (Id., 5:33.)
`
`4. Having a large number of primary preambles that exhibit the above
`
`three properties. Id., 5:34-35.
`
`When the primary preamble meets these criteria, good quality multi-carrier
`
`communications using a variable channel bandwidth can be achieved.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2014-01195
`
`
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ISSUES
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are interpreted
`
`
`
`
`
`according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of
`
`the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Office Patent Trial
`
`Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012). Under that
`
`construction, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as
`
`would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire
`
`disclosure. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`Further, it is well-settled that limitations from a particular embodiment appearing
`
`in the written description are not to be read into the claim if the plain and ordinary
`
`meaning of the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See Phillips v.
`
`AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`Petitioner identified four claim terms for construction: “bandwidth,” “core-
`
`band,” “primary preamble,” and “peak-to-average ratio.” The parties’ proposed
`
`constructions are as follows:
`
`’431 Patent
`Claim Term
`bandwidth
`
`Patent Owner’s
`Proposed Construction
`“a width of a frequency
`band”
`
`Petitioner’s
`Proposed Construction
`“a frequency range that
`a component, circuit, or
`system passes or uses”
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2014-01195
`
`
`
`’431 Patent
`Claim Term
`core-band
`
`primary preamble
`
`peak-to-average ratio
`
`Patent Owner’s
`Proposed Construction
`“a frequency segment,
`substantially centered at
`the operating center
`frequency, 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 signal containing
`bandwidth information
`transmitted by the base
`station near the beginning
`of each frame and
`occupying only the core
`band”
`No dispute.
`
`Petitioner’s
`Proposed Construction
`“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 signal transmitted
`near the beginning of a
`transmission, such as a
`frame or time slot, and
`occupying only the core
`band”
`
`“peak-to-average power
`ratio”
`
`
`For the reasons set forth below, the Board should reject Petitioner’s
`
`improper constructions for the terms “bandwidth,” “core-band,” and “primary
`
`preamble” and adopt Patent Owner’s proposed constructions. Patent Owner does
`
`not dispute Petitioner’s proposed construction of “peak-to-average ratio.”
`
`“bandwidth”
`
`A.
`Patent Owner submits that the claim term “bandwidth” should be construed
`
`in accordance with its ordinary meaning as “a width of a frequency band.”
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2014-01195
`
`
`
`
`The term “bandwidth” is well-understood in the field of wireless
`
`
`
`communications to mean “the width of a frequency band.” Merriam-Webster’s
`
`Collegiate Dictionary, 10th ed. at 89 (2001) (defining “bandwidth” generally to
`
`mean “a range within a band of wavelengths, frequencies, or energies”). Indeed,
`
`the ‘431 patent describes the bandwidth in terms of frequency. E.g., Exhibit 1001,
`
`Tables 1, 2, and 3 describing bandwidth using “MHz”.
`
`Petitioner agrees that the term “bandwidth” refers to frequency, but offers no
`
`factual justification for limiting the term “bandwidth” to “a frequency range that a
`
`component, circuit, or system passes or uses.” There is no support for such
`
`extraneous limitations. Indeed, Petitioner’s citation to Figure 6 of the ‘431 patent
`
`and the excerpts at 4:36-37 and 4:41-42 provide additional support for Patent
`
`Owner’s proposed plain meaning construction.
`
` The Board should reject
`
`Petitioner’s attempt to improperly import limitations into the claims. See Kara
`
`Tech. Inc. v. Stamps.com Inc., 582 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2009); see
`
`also SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2004). Patent Owner’s plain meaning construction of “bandwidth” (“the width of a
`
`frequency band”) should be adopted.
`
`“core-band”
`
`B.
`Patent Owner proposes that the claim term “core-band” be construed as “a
`
`frequency segment, substantially centered at the operating center frequency, that is
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2014-01195
`
`
`
`
`not greater than the smallest operating channel bandwidth among all the possible
`
`
`
`spectral bands that the receiver is designed to operate with.”
`
`The specification of the ’431 patent expressly defines “core-band” as
`
`follows:
`
`A core-band, substantially centered at
`
`the operating center
`
`frequency, is defined as a frequency segment that is not greater than
`
`the smallest operating channel bandwidth among all the possible
`
`spectral bands that the receiver is designed to operate with.
`
`Exhibit 1001, 4:67-5:4. Figure 6 is illustrative, depicting a system that is intended
`
`to work at 5, 6, 8, and 10 MHz with a 4 MHz core-band. Id., 5:5-7. The 4MHz
`
`core-band, which is smaller than the smallest possible operating channel bandwidth
`
`(5MHz), is centered in the possible discrete operating channel bandwidths: 5, 6, 8,
`
`and 10 MHz. Id. at Fig. 6.
`
`Petitioner’s proposed construction -- “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” – would, contrary to the
`
`definition set forth in the specification, omit the limitation that the core-band be
`
`“substantially centered at the operating center frequency.” Petition at 17. The
`
`Board should reject Petitioner’s construction in light of the express definition of
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2014-01195
`
`
`
`
`core-band set forth in the specification. Instead, Patent Owner’s construction
`
`
`
`should be adopted.
`
`“primary preamble”
`
`C.
`Patent Owner submits that the term “primary preamble” should be construed
`
`as “a signal containing bandwidth information transmitted by the base station near
`
`the beginning of each frame and occupying only the core-band.”
`
`The parties agree that the word “preamble” alone denotes transmission near
`
`the beginning of a transmission, such as a frame or slot. Petition at 17. The parties
`
`further agree that the term “primary preamble” is not known as a term of art in the
`
`field. Id. Since “primary preamble” has no established meaning to those of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, its meaning must be found in the patent. Irdeto Access,
`
`Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp., 383 F.3d 1295, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`The ‘431 patent explains that “an essential, or primary preamble (EP), is
`
`designed to only occupy the CB, as depicted in FIG. 8. The EP alone is sufficient
`
`for the basic radio operation.” Id., 5:19-22 (emphasis added). The specification
`
`further explains that
`
`the system provides
`
`the bandwidth
`
`information via downlink
`
`signaling, such as using a broadcasting channel or a preamble. When
`
`entering into a VB [variable bandwidth] network, the mobile stations
`
`will scan the spectral bands of different center frequencies in which
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2014-01195
`
`
`
`the receiver is designed to operate and decode the bandwidth
`
`information contained in the broadcasting channel or preamble.
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1001, 6:26-32 (emphasis added). In other words, in order to enable basic
`
`radio operations by a mobile station in a variable bandwidth (VB) network, the
`
`primary preamble must contain the necessary “bandwidth information.” Upon
`
`entering the variable bandwidth network, the mobile station initially operates at the
`
`“primary state” of basic operations enabled by the primary preamble, and then
`
`transitions to a “normal full-bandwidth operation for additional data and radio
`
`control channels.” Id., 5:15-18. Thus, the term “primary preamble” should be
`
`interpreted to include “bandwidth information” because such information is
`
`necessary to enable basic radio operation by a mobile station in a variable
`
`bandwidth network, as claimed.
`
`Petitioner contends that “primary preamble” should be construed as “a signal
`
`transmitted near the beginning of a transmission, and occupying only the core
`
`band.” Petition at 18. But Petitioner’s proposed construction is too broad. The
`
`specification defines “primary preamble” in the context of providing information
`
`“sufficient for the basic radio operation” within a variable bandwidth environment.
`
`Exhibit 1001, 4:64-66; 5:21-22. Adopting Petitioner’s construction would
`
`effectively strip the term “primary preamble” of all meaning by omitting any
`
`reference to bandwidth information, notwithstanding that every claim of the ‘431
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2014-01195
`
`
`
`
`patent is directed to a variable bandwidth (VB) environment. Id., challenged
`
`
`
`independent claim 1 (“In a variable bandwidth wireless communication system,”
`
`“[a] process comprising: utilizing by the base station a number of subcarriers to
`
`construct a variable bandwidth wireless channel”); challenged independent claim 8
`
`(“circuitry configured to transmit control and data channels using a variable
`
`band”); challenged independent claim 18 (“A variable bandwidth communication
`
`method compri