Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
` Paper 9
`Entered: October 22, 2013
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`CLEARWIRE CORPORATION and CLEAR WIRELESS LLC
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`MOBILE TELECOMMNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00306
`Patent 5,590,403
`
`
`
`Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, JONI Y. CHANG,
`MIRIAM L. QUINN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`QUINN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`1
`
`TMO1023
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
` Paper 9
`Entered: October 22, 2013
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`CLEARWIRE CORPORATION and CLEAR WIRELESS LLC
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`MOBILE TELECOMMNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00306
`Patent 5,590,403
`
`
`
`Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, JONI Y. CHANG,
`MIRIAM L. QUINN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`QUINN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`1
`
`TMO1023
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00306
`Patent 5,590,403
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Clearwire Corporation and Clear Wireless LLC (―Clearwire‖ or
`
`―Petitioners‖) filed a Petition to institute inter partes review of claims 1, 10,
`
`and 11 of Patent 5,590,403 (the ―’403 patent‖) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311
`
`et seq. Paper 1 (―Pet.‖). Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC
`
`(―MTEL‖ or ―Patent Owner‖) timely filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 8
`
`(―Prelim. Resp.‖). 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 as follows:
`
`THRESHOLD – The Director may not authorize an inter partes
`review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the
`information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and
`any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a
`reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect
`to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.
`
`Petitioners contend that claims 1, 10, and 11 (―the challenged claims‖)
`
`are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and/or 103 based on the following
`
`specific grounds (Pet. 3-7, 15-57):
`
`Reference[s]
`
`AMPS1
`
`Gilhousen ’4722
`
`Basis
`
`Claims challenged
`
`§ 102
`
`§ 102
`
`1, 10, and 11
`
`1, 10, and 11
`
`
`
` 1
`
` Z.C. Fluhr and P.T. Porter, Advanced Mobile Phone Service: Control
`Architecture, 58 BELL SYS. TECHNICAL J. 43-69 (1979) (Exhibit 1005)
`(―AMPS‖).
`2 U.S. Patent No. 5,280,472 (Exhibit 1006) (―Gilhousen ’472‖).
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00306
`Patent 5,590,403
`
`
`Reference[s]
`
`Gilhousen ’3903
`
`Gilhousen ’5014
`
`Paulraj5
`
`Linquist6
`
`Bollinger7
`
`Linquist and Uddenfelt8
`
`Basis
`
`Claims challenged
`
`§ 102
`
`§ 102
`
`§ 102
`
`§ 102
`
`§ 102
`
`§ 103
`
`1, 10, and 11
`
`1, 10, and 11
`
`1 and 10
`
`1, 10, and 11
`
`1 and 10
`
`1, 10 and 11
`
`Linquist and Gilhousen ’501
`
`§ 103
`
`1, 10, and 11
`
`Linquist and Winters9
`
`Linquist and Anderson10
`
`Paulraj and Uddenfelt
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`1, 10, and 11
`
`1, 10, and 11
`
`1, 10, and 11
`
`Paulraj and Gilhousen ’390
`
`§ 103
`
`1, 10, and 11
`
`Paulraj and Linquist
`
`§ 103
`
`1, 10, and 11
`
`
`
` 3
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,109,390 (Exhibit 1007) (―Gilhousen ’390‖).
`4 U.S. Patent No. 5,101,501 (Exhibit 1008) (―Gilhousen ’501‖).
`5 U.S. Patent No. 5,345,599 (Exhibit 1009) (―Paulraj‖).
`6 U.S. Patent No. 5,423,056 (Exhibit 1010) (―Linquist‖).
`7 U.S. Patent No. 5,195,090 (Exhibit 1011) (―Bollinger‖).
`8 U.S. Patent No. 5,109,528 (Exhibit 1012) (―Uddenfelt‖).
`9 Jack H. Winters, Jack Salz, and Richard D. Gitlin, The Impact of Antenna
`Diversity on the Capacity of Wireless Communication Systems, 42 IEEE
`TRANSACTIONS ON COMM. 1740-1751 (1994) (Exhibit 1013) (―Winters‖).
`10 Sören Anderson, Mille Millnert, Mats Viberg, and Bo Wahlberg, An
`Adaptive Array for Mobile Communication Systems, 40 IEEE
`TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECH. 230-236 (1991) (Exhibit 1014)
`(―Anderson‖).
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00306
`Patent 5,590,403
`
`
`Reference[s]
`
`Basis
`
`Claims challenged
`
`Paulraj and Winters
`
`Paulraj and Anderson
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`1 and 10
`
`1, 10, and 11
`
`Gilhousen ’501 and Uddenfelt
`
`§ 103
`
`1, 10, and 11
`
`Gilhousen ’501 and Paulraj
`
`§ 103
`
`1, 10, and 11
`
`Gilhousen ’501 and Winters
`
`§ 103
`
`1, 10, and 11
`
`Gilhousen ’501 and Anderson
`
`§ 103
`
`1, 10, and 11
`
`Gilhousen’472 and Uddenfelt
`
`§ 103
`
`1, 10, and 11
`
`Gilhousen ’472 and Paulraj
`
`§ 103
`
`1, 10, and 11
`
`Gilhousen ’472 and Winters
`
`§ 103
`
`1, 10, and 11
`
`Gilhousen ’472 and Anderson
`
`§ 103
`
`1, 10, and 11
`
`Gilhousen ’472 and Gilhousen
`’390 and Gilhousen ’501
`
`§ 103
`
`1, 10, and 11
`
`Gilhousen ’390 and Uddenfelt
`
`§ 103
`
`1, 10, and 11
`
`Gilhousen ’390 and Winters
`
`§ 103
`
`1, 10, and 11
`
`Gilhousen ’390 and Anderson
`
`§ 103
`
`1, 10, and 11
`
`Bollinger and Uddenfelt
`
`§ 103
`
`1, 10, and 11
`
`Bollinger and Gilhousen ’501
`
`§ 103
`
`1, 10, and 11
`
`Bollinger and Paulraj
`
`Bollinger and Winters
`
`Bollinger and Anderson
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`1, 10, and 11
`
`1 and 10
`
`1, 10, and 11
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00306
`Patent 5,590,403
`
`
`For the reasons described below, we determine that the present record
`
`demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that Petitioners will prevail in
`
`establishing the unpatentability of all the challenged claims. Accordingly,
`
`we GRANT the petition for inter partes review of the ’403 patent as to
`
`claims 1, 10 and 11 based on the authorized grounds, as discussed below.
`
`
`
`II.
`
`PRELIMINARY MATTERS
`
`Before delving into the analysis of the ’403 patent and the authorized
`
`grounds, we address Patent Owner’s contentions regarding the current state
`
`of the litigation in which the ’403 patent is involved.
`
`First, the ʼ403 patent is the subject matter of the following co-pending
`
`district court litigations: MTEL v. Clearwire, Case No. 2:12-cv-308
`
`(E.D.Tex.); MTEL v. Sprint Nextel Corp., Case No. 2:12-cv-832 (E.D. Tex.);
`
`and MTEL v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 2:13-cv-258 (E.D.Tex.). Pet. 1-2;
`
`Prelim. Resp. 10.
`
`Second, Patent Owner contends that, considering the status of the
`
`pending litigation identified above and the date of expiration of the
`
`’403 patent, the Board must deny the Petition in the interests of justice.
`
`Prelim. Resp. 9-10. Specifically, Patent Owner argues that the district court
`
`case against Petitioners is scheduled for a trial on the merits on February 3,
`
`2014, and that the other pending district court cases also involve patents not
`
`at issue in this proceeding. Id. According to Patent Owner, instituting inter
`
`partes review would not promote settlement of the pending district court
`
`cases. Id. The argument of Patent Owner involves speculation as to the
`
`timing and impact of the district court action and this proceeding. The
`
`Board recognizes the various interests of the parties involved in this
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00306
`Patent 5,590,403
`
`proceeding. But the Board is not persuaded that consideration of the
`
`interests of justice weighs in favor of denying the Petition merely because
`
`either (1) settlement or (2) the district court trial on the merits possibly—but
`
`not definitely—could happen earlier than a Board decision. Furthermore,
`
`this proceeding streamlines the issues by instituting trial on a limited number
`
`of grounds, thus promoting efficient use of the parties’ and the Board’s
`
`resources. Finally, Patent Owner concedes that the interests of the public
`
`also must be considered (Prelim. Resp. 9). And to serve those interests, the
`
`Board does not ignore the evidence presented by Petitioner, regardless of the
`
`possibility that a district court trial may begin before the Board issues a final
`
`decision.
`
`Furthermore, Patent Owner contends that the ’403 patent will expire
`
`before there is a final decision in this proceeding, and that, therefore, inter
`
`partes review would not be timely. Prelim. Resp. 7-8. Institution of an inter
`
`partes proceeding is not precluded where the patent involved expires during
`
`the proceeding. Even for an expired patent, recovery for past damages is
`
`possible. See 35 U.S.C. § 286. Therefore, the argument—that the public
`
`interest is not served by instituting a trial on unpatentability of a soon-to-be-
`
`expired patent—is unpersuasive.
`
`III. DISCUSSION
`
`A. THE ’403 PATENT (EX. 1002)
`
`The ’403 patent, titled ―Method and System for Efficiently Providing
`
`Two Way Communication Between a Central Network and Mobile Unit,‖
`
`issued on December 31, 1996, based on an application filed on November
`
`12, 1992. It relates to ―providing two-way communication capability
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00306
`Patent 5,590,403
`
`between a central network and a mobile unit over a relatively large area‖ to
`
`allow for rapid communication of large messages and efficient use of system
`
`resources. Ex. 1002, col. 1, ll. 10-14. The patent describes that
`
`conventional two-way messaging systems provide a network of
`
`interconnected transmitters and receivers, such that signal strength of the
`
`transmission and the receive capability cover, uniformly, a geographic
`
`region. Id. at col. 1, ll. 20-24.
`
`To extend transmitter coverage, the patent describes that simulcast
`
`technology is positioned to cover extended areas and operates on
`
`substantially the same frequencies and transmits the same information. Id. at
`
`col. 1, ll. 44-53. Where the coverage areas overlap, the patent describes that
`
`destructive interference of signals occurs. Id. at col. 1, l. 64 – col. 2, l. 3.
`
`The patent further describes some of the techniques involved in designing a
`
`simulcast system, techniques which may overcome the destructive
`
`interference, e.g., using synchronization of carrier frequencies and offsetting.
`
`See id. at col. 2, ll. 5-65. While these techniques may result in successful
`
`data reception, the baud rate in simulcast operation is limited, thus also
`
`limiting the system throughput. Id. at col. 3, ll. 45-50.
`
`The ’403 patent provides that an alternative to simulcasting is the use
`
`of orthogonal-based systems, such as the conventional cellular radio service.
`
`Id. at col. 3, l. 51 – col. 4, l. 11. With frequency reuse in spatially separated
`
`cells, a conventional cellular system may be designed to reduce the
`
`interference between transmitters. Id. at col. 4, ll. 11-22. The patent
`
`describes, however, that as the number of cells increases, for wider system-
`
`area coverage, the system throughput decreases, thus reducing the amount of
`
`information transferred. Id. at col. 4, ll. 22-40.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00306
`Patent 5,590,403
`
`
`One embodiment of the ’403 patent involves a method of delivering a
`
`message to mobile units that ―would increase information throughput and
`
`system efficiency.‖ Id. at col. 10, ll. 19-23, 61-62. The method is depicted
`
`in Figure 7 and is described with respect to the communication system
`
`illustrated in Figure 6 (id. at col. 7, ll. 47-48), reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 6 illustrates a system having two zones (Zone 1 and Zone 2),
`
`where each zone includes multiple base transmitters (Zone 1 includes base
`
`transmitters 614, 615, and Zone 2 includes base transmitters 612, 613). Id.
`
`at col. 9, ll. 5-8, 40-50; fig. 6. The patent describes a method by which
`
`network operations center 600 generates a system information signal of
`
`several blocks of information that includes an electronic message to be
`
`delivered to mobile unit 624. Id. at col. 10, ll. 23-27. Then the signal is
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00306
`Patent 5,590,403
`
`transmitted to satellite 606 and further to base transmitters 614, 612 (to
`
`Zone 1 and Zone 2, respectively). Id. at col. 10, ll. 28-39. These base
`
`transmitters 612, 614 transmit the signal, which includes the message to the
`
`mobile unit, in simulcast during a first time period. Id. at col. 10, ll. 40-46.
`
`The patent describes that the simulcast transmission is useful when the
`
`location of the mobile unit is unknown and broad coverage is desired. Id. at
`
`col. 10, ll. 46-49.
`
`The ’403 patent further describes a second time interval for
`
`transmitting the signal, which includes the message, by the base transmitter
`
`in Zone 1, if the location of mobile unit 612 is known. Id. at col. 10, ll. 50-
`
`56. During this second time interval, the transmitter in Zone 2 could deliver
`
`a different message to a different mobile unit. Id. at col. 10, ll. 56-60. The
`
`patent describes that the second time interval transmission ―would increase
`
`information throughput and system efficiency.‖ Id. at col. 10, ll. 61-62.
`
`The patent also describes that, while simulcast may provide uniform
`
`transmitter coverage for a region, overlap areas of zones operating in
`
`simulcast—where each zone transmits different signals—may experience
`
`interference. Id. at col. 10, ll. 7-18. To deliver messages to mobile units in
`
`an overlap region and to balance the volume of message traffic between
`
`zones, the patent describes a method of dynamically changing the zonal
`
`assignments of various base transmitters. Id. at col. 23, ll. 43-54. According
`
`to this method, a zone is redefined by assigning transmitters to another zone,
`
`changing thus the zone boundaries and the high traffic overlap region. See
`
`id at col. 24, ll. 21-25.
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00306
`Patent 5,590,403
`
`
`B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIMS
`
`Challenged claims 1 and 10 are independent. Certain claims terms are
`
`emphasized and will be discussed in further detail herein:
`
`1. A method for information transmission by a plurality of
`transmitters to provide broad communication capability over a region
`of space, the information transmission occurring during at least both a
`first time period and a second time period and the plurality of
`transmitters being divided into at least a first and second set of
`transmitters, the method comprising the steps of:
`
`(a) generating a system information signal which includes a
`plurality of blocks of information;
`
`(b) transmitting the system information signal to the plurality of
`transmitters;
`
`(c) transmitting by the first and second sets of transmitters a
`first block of information in simulcast during the first time
`period;
`
`(d) transmitting by the first set of transmitters a second block of
`information during the second time period; and
`
`(e) transmitting by the second set of transmitters a third block
`of information during the second time period.
`
`10. A method of communicating messages between a plurality
`of base transmitters and mobile receivers within a region of
`space divided into a plurality of zones with each zone having at
`least one base transmitter assigned thereto, the communication
`method comprising the steps of:
`
`first
`simultaneously a
`substantially
`transmitting
`(a)
`information signal and a second information signal to
`communicate messages to the mobile receivers, the first
`information signal being transmitted in simulcast by a first
`set of base transmitters assigned to a first zone, and the
`second information signal being transmitted in simulcast by
`a second set of base transmitters assigned to a second zone;
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00306
`Patent 5,590,403
`
`
`(b) dynamically reassigning one or more of the base
`transmitters in the first set of base transmitter assigned to the
`first zone to the second set of base transmitters assigned to
`the second zone as a function of the messages to be
`communicated in an area, thereby creating an updated first
`set of base transmitters and an updated second set of base
`transmitters; and
`
`third
`transmitting substantially simultaneously a
`(c)
`information signal and a fourth information signal, the third
`information signal being transmitted in simulcast by the
`updated first set of base transmitters, and the fourth
`information signal being transmitted in simulcast by the
`updated second set of base transmitters to communicate
`additional messages to said mobile receivers.
`
`
`IV. ANALYSIS
`
`A. CLAIM INTERPRETATION
`
`In an inter partes review, ―[a] claim in an unexpired patent shall be
`
`given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`
`patent in which it appears.‖ 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). 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. In re
`
`Translogic Technology, Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`In this proceeding, Patent Owner raises the issue that the ’403 patent
`
`is alleged to expire on December 31, 2013, while inter partes review is
`
`ongoing. At the time of this decision, the ’403 patent, however, has not
`
`expired, and therefore, we apply without exception the standard of
`
`construction consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation. We note,
`
`however, that the Board’s analysis and constructions in the present case do
`
`not depart significantly from the district court’s constructions.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00306
`Patent 5,590,403
`
`
`Petitioners submit proposed constructions for the following
`
`―simulcast‖ terms: ―transmitting . . . in simulcast‖ and ―transmitted in
`
`simulcast.‖ Claims 1, 10. Patent Owner asserts that these terms, as well as
`
`other terms in the challenged claims, have been construed by the district
`
`court in the co-pending litigation. Prelim. Resp. 6, nn.1, 2. In assessing the
`
`merit of Petitioners’ arguments, we construe the ―simulcast‖ terms and
`
`additional claim terms relevant to this proceeding.
`1.
`
`―transmitting . . . in simulcast‖ (Claim 1)/―transmitted in
`simulcast‖ (Claim 10)
`
`The term ―simulcast‖ is recited in the claims to denote a manner of
`
`transmission by the recited transmitters. The Background of the Invention
`
`describes ―simulcast technology‖ as providing ―multiple transmitters,
`
`operating on substantially the same frequencies and transmitting the same
`
`information.‖ Ex. 1002, col. 1, ll. 44-46, 50-52. The Specification further
`
`describes that the transmitters depicted in Figure 6 (base transmitters 612
`
`and 614) ―are broadcasting identical signals on the same frequencies in
`
`simulcast.‖ Id. at col. 10, ll. 3-6. In describing various embodiments, the
`
`Specification repeatedly uses the term ―simulcast‖ without offering a more
`
`specific definition. See id. at col. 10, ll. 45-46; col. 11, ll. 45-47 (stating that
`
`―several zones are operated in simulcast to simultaneously transmit identical
`
`information to a large geographic area‖). Two requirements emerge from
`
`these descriptions and the claim language. First, there is a simultaneous
`
`transmission. Second, because claim 1 recites ―transmitting by the first and
`
`second sets of transmitters a first block of information in simulcast,‖ the
`
`information transmitted must be the same. Claim 10, in contrast, recites the
`
`―first information signal being transmitted in simulcast‖ and similar
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00306
`Patent 5,590,403
`
`language regarding the second, third, and fourth information signals.
`
`Therefore, the information signal transmitted by a set of transmitters,
`
`according to claim 10, is the same information signal.
`
`Petitioners propose the following construction: ―broadcasting identical
`
`signals simultaneously.‖ Pet. 14. Further, examination of the claim
`
`language leads us to conclude that including the requirement of ―identical
`
`signals‖ is contrary to the language of claim 1, but not to claim 10.
`
`Accordingly, we construe the phrase ―transmitting . . . information in
`
`simulcast‖ as ―transmitting the same information at the same time.‖ And we
`
`construe the phrase ―signal being transmitted in simulcast‖ as ―transmitting
`
`the same information signal at the same time.‖
`
`We note that the district court in MTEL v. Clearwire issued a Claim
`
`Construction Memorandum and Order (Ex. 1015), reaching the same
`
`conclusion for the construction of the phrase recited in claim 1. We have
`
`deviated slightly from the district court’s construction of claim 10 only to
`
`account for the difference in claim language. See Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`
`415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (―the claims of a patent define the
`
`invention‖) (internal citations omitted).
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00306
`Patent 5,590,403
`
`
`2.
`
`―set of transmitters‖ (Claim 1)/―set of base transmitters‖
`(Claim 10)
`
`Neither party proposes a construction for the terms: ―set of
`
`transmitters‖ and ―set of base transmitters.‖ We construe these terms with
`
`regard to the number of transmitters encompassed by the recited terms
`
`because this conclusion is relevant to our decision. First, the Specification
`
`does not provide a definition for these terms. Instead, the Specification and
`
`the claim language use the terms according to their plain and ordinary
`
`meaning. Second, there appears to be no distinction between use of the
`
`word ―set‖ in independent claims 1 and 10. Accordingly, the phrases have a
`
`meaning consistent across both claims. As evidence of the plain and
`
`ordinary meaning of the word ―set,‖ we note that a dictionary defines the
`
`noun as ―a group of articles of uniform design‖ (e.g., a set of dishes) and ―a
`
`group formed by classification‖ (e.g., a set of ideas). Definition set, 39(a),
`
`44(a), WEBSTER’S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY, UNABRIDGED
`
`(1993). This definition is consistent with the use of the word in the claims
`
`and the Specification: a group of transmitters. Furthermore, the recited
`
`―updated first set of base transmitters‖ and the ―updated second set of base
`
`transmitters‖ each transmits in simulcast. Claim 10. Consequently, the
`
`―set‖ must include a group (i.e., more than one), consistent with the plain
`
`and ordinary meaning.
`
`According to the foregoing, applying the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation, we construe ―set of transmitters‖ as ―a group of transmitters,‖
`
`and we construe ―a set of base transmitters‖ as ―a group of base
`
`transmitters.‖ We note, again, that our conclusion regarding these terms
`
`does not depart significantly from that of the district court. See Ex. 1015,
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00306
`Patent 5,590,403
`
`p. 8.
`
`B. GROUNDS BASED ON LINQUIST (EX. 1010)
`
`Petitioners contend that Linquist anticipates claims 1, 10, and 11. Pet.
`
`25-57. Petitioners also contend that claims 1, 10, and 11 are obvious based
`
`on Linquist in combination with each of the following: Uddenfelt,
`
`Gillhousen ’501, Winters, and Anderson. Id. In support for their contention,
`
`Petitioners provide a claim chart pointing to cites in Linquist that allegedly
`
`meet the claim limitations. Id. Petitioners further rely on a declaration by
`
`Dr. Alon Konchitsky. Ex. 1001.
`
`Patent Owner urges the Board to deny the Petition because the
`
`evidence provided in Petitioners’ claim charts fails to link the claim
`
`elements to particular elements of Linquist’s system. Prelim. Resp. 17-20.
`
`According to Patent Owner, ―it is impossible to determine how Petitioner
`
`asserts that any asserted reference includes all the material elements of any
`
`of the claims of the ’403 patent.‖ Prelim. Resp. 20 (emphasis added).
`
`We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument. We determine
`
`that the clarity of Linquist’s disclosure and the more particularized showing
`
`in Dr. Konchitsky’s declaration (at pages 75-87 of Exhibit 1001) do not
`
`make it impossible to ascertain the merits of Petitioners’ contentions as they
`
`pertain to the Linquist grounds.
`1.
`
`Overview of Linquist
`
`Linquist is directed to a location detection system that operates with
`
`an existing paging system to determine location and to divide the system,
`
`adaptively, into cells for delivery of messages to select cells. Ex. 1010,
`
`col. 1, ll. 10-14. In particular, Linquist describes a paging system with
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00306
`Patent 5,590,403
`
`antenna towers providing a relatively even coverage for transmission, in a
`
`simulcast manner, of paging information. Id. at col. 3, l. 51-60; col. 4, ll. 2-
`
`8. Figure 1, reproduced below, depicts antenna towers 16, 18, and 20 (also
`
`referred to as ―sticks‖) transmitting paging messages to personal location
`
`units (PLUs). Id. at col. 4, ll. 22-32.
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 shows PLU 36, which stores the call sign or identifier (ID) of
`
`a paging transmitter associated with the antenna from which the PLU
`
`receives the information. Id. at col. 4, ll. 36-41. A PLU transmits its
`
`location or the last received ID to the system, upon request. Id. at col. 4, ll.
`
`63-68. The system determines the general location of a PLU using the
`
`received ID. Id. at col. 5, ll. 4-12. Knowing which sticks are in the general
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00306
`Patent 5,590,403
`
`vicinity of the PLU, the system can determine a hub (defining a locale) in
`
`which the PLU resides and can route the messages to that hub. Id. at col. 5,
`
`ll. 15-36; col. 14, ll. 39-47. This avoids having to route the messages to all
`
`the hubs in the network. See id at col. 5, ll. 31-36; col. 15, ll. 1-2.
`
`Linquist also describes a method of transmission relevant to the
`
`unknown mobility of the PLU and unverified PLU’s location. Id. at col. 5,
`
`ll. 40-50. For example, Linquist describes a sequence of transmissions,
`
`aimed at increasing the system throughput by determining the PLU’s
`
`location as follows: transmit the location ID by all transmitters, transmit
`
`requests for location information to PLUs with unknown location by all
`
`transmitters, and, after the locations have been received, transmit the
`
`message over the transmitter and stick covering each PLU. See id. at col. 8,
`
`ll. 6-40.
`
`Additionally, Linquist describes with respect to Figure 12, reproduced
`
`below, that the coverage area of adjacent sticks overlaps, resulting in
`
`ambiguity in the location of a PLU in the overlap region. Id. at col. 15, ll. 3-
`
`23.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00306
`Patent 5,590,403
`
`
`Figure 12 illustrates a grid arrangement with cells arranged in a
`
`matrix, i.e., A-cells, B-cells, C-cells, and D-cells. Id. at col. 15, ll. 30-34.
`
`Linquist’s overlapping cells are controlled to be turned on and off
`
`sequentially to deliver the messages to the PLUs in overlapping zones. Id. at
`
`col. 15, ll. 18-29, 34-37. Linquist describes two embodiments of
`
`overlapping cell control. Id. at col. 15, ll. 34-40. The first embodiment
`
`involves turning on one group of cells at a time: ―first turn on the A-cells,
`
`followed by the B-cells, followed by the C-cells, and then by the D-cells.‖
`
`Id. at col. 15, ll. 35-37. The second embodiment involves turning on two
`
`overlapping cell areas through orthogonal coding: ―turn on all of the A- and
`
`B-cells, followed by turning on of all the C- and D-cells.‖ Id. at col. 15, ll.
`
`52-55.
`
`Furthermore, Linquist describes various methods of message
`
`transmission that take advantage of the simulcast and cellular modes of
`
`communication. Id. at figs. 13-15; col. 15, l. 30 – col. 16, l. 31. Linquist
`
`describes that in simulcast mode, messages are broadcast to all the sticks for
`
`retransmission and that in cellular mode, batch messages are directed to
`
`particular cells. Id. at col. 16, ll. 2-11. One example of a transmission
`
`sequence that illustrates these modes of communications is illustrated in
`
`Figure 15, reproduced below.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00306
`Patent 5,590,403
`
`
`
`
`Figure 15 depicts a message string comprising simulcast-mode time
`
`periods (Sn, Sn+1, and Sn+2) and cellular-mode time periods (e.g., BCn and
`
`BCn+1). Id. at col. 16, l. 62 – col. 17, l. 2. Linquist states that multiple
`
`messages can be transmitted to the different building cell sites during the
`
`BCn time period. Id. The message string of Figure 15 also depicts cellular-
`
`mode time periods for transmission to A- and B-cells, and C- and D-cells,
`
`sequentially. Id. at col. 17, ll. 2-6. By converting adaptively between
`
`simulcast and cellular mode and arranging the messages to be transmitted
`
`during the cellular mode, the system optimizes efficiency of transmission.
`
`Id. at col. 17, ll. 16-20.
`
`2.
`
`Analysis Concerning the Anticipation Grounds Based on
`Linquist
`
`Claim 1
`
`Petitioners argue that ―cellular mode‖ and ―simulcast mode‖
`
`communications are called out as different transmission types for different
`
`types of messages. Id. We agree that Linquist discloses cellular-mode and
`
`simulcast-mode communications, as stated above with respect to Figure 15
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00306
`Patent 5,590,403
`
`of Linquist.
`
`Turning to the evidence presented in Dr. Konchitsky’s declaration,
`
`Petitioners identify Linquist’s disclosure of generating a control link signal
`
`in conventional paging systems as meeting the limitation of ―generating a
`
`system information signal,‖ as recited in claim 1. Ex. 1001, p. 76. Linquist
`
`also discloses that the control link signal includes the page requests.
`
`Ex. 1010, col. 18, ll. 7-11.
`
`Further, as to the limitation of ―transmitting the system information
`
`signal to the plurality of transmitters,‖ Linquist discloses that paging
`
`information is transmitted via the uplink to the satellite and then is
`
`transmitted via satellite to all the antennas on sticks for re-transmission.
`
`Ex. 1001, 76 (citing Ex. 1010, col. 3, l. 66 – col. 4, l. 11). We determine that
`
`the disclosure in Linquist describing the transmission of the control link
`
`signal through the satellite and to the paging transmitters is also relevant to
`
`this ―transmitting‖ limitation. Ex. 1010, col. 18, ll. 18-21.
`
`Concerning the ―simulcast‖ limitation in claim 1(c), Petitioners point
`
`out that the sticks (which include a transmitter) in Linquist receive the
`
`simulcast data and re-transmit the data to the pagers within the hub.
`
`Ex. 1001, p. 77 (citing Ex. 1010, col. 14, ll. 38-50). We note as also relevant
`
`to this limitation the embodiment described with respect to Figure 15,
`
`discussed above, describing that simulcast messages Sn, Sn+1, and Sn+2 are
`
`broadcast during the time intervals shown. Ex. 1010, col. 16, l. 59 – col. 17,
`
`l. 11 (relied in the submitted declaration, Ex. 1001, p. 77). The disclosure of
`
`broadcasting ―simulcast‖ messages in Linquist is consistent with our
`
`construction of the term ―transmitting . . . in simulcast.‖
`
`The last two limitations of clam 1 are similar. Limitations 1(d) and
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00306
`Patent 5,590,403
`
`1(e) require transmitting a second and third block of information,
`
`respectively, by a ―set of transmitters.‖ We have construed that term to
`
`include a group of transmitters, i.e., more than one. Petitioners point to
`
`Linquist’s description of the batch messages (BM) transmitted in cellular
`
`mode as described with respect to Figure 13. Ex. 1001, pp. 77-79. While
`
`the cited description of the cellular-mode transmission reveals that a
`
`different block of information is transmitted by each stick, the identified
`
`passage does not indicate that more than one transmitter transmits the batch
`
`message. Nevertheless, Petitioners also cite passages describing the
`
`message string illustrated in Figure 15, discussed above, which describes the
`
`embodiment in which batch messages are transmitted in cellular mode by the
`
`non-overlapping group of cells: A- and B-cells (one group) and C- and D-
`
`cells (second group). Id. (citing Ex. 1010, col. 16, l. 59 – col. 17, l. 20). We
`
`are persuaded that the groups-of-cells transmission in Linquist meets our
`
`construction of ―set of transmitters.‖
`
`Based on the foregoing, we are persuaded that Petitioners have
`
`provided sufficient evidence of a reasonable likelihood that they will prevail
`
`in establishing the unpatentability of claim 1 as being anticipated by
`
`Linquist.
`
`Claim 10
`
`With regard to claim 10, Petitioners contend that Linquist discloses all
`
`the claim limitations, including the ―dynamically reassigning‖ step. Pet. 37-
`
`49. According to Petitioners’ argument, Linquist’s base transmitters are
`
`reassigned to alternate zones because the zones, or groups of transmitting
`
`antennas, are arranged to ―follow the mobile transceiver.‖ Pet. 23. We
`
`agree that Linquist discloses sticks that transmit messages to its registered
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00306
`Patent 5,590,403
`
`PLUs. In addition, we note that the declaration relies on Linquist’s
`
`description of hub communications. Ex. 1001, p. 80. For example, the
`
`declaration relies on Linquist’s disclosure of a group of sticks forming a hub
`
`and having a common ID, such that a transmission to the hub, in simulcast,
`
`would be directed to the group of sticks and for the purpose of re-
`
`transmitting messages to the PLUs within the hub. Id. (citing Ex. 1010, col.
`
`14, ll. 9-38 and 38-50). The limitation labeled ―(a),‖ in claim 10, requires
`
`simulcast transmission of a first and s
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
