Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 15
`
`
`
` Entered: August 27, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC. and ZTE (USA), INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SPH AMERICA, LLC and ELECTRONICS AND
`TELECOMMUNICATIONS
`RESEARCH INSTITUTE,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Cases IPR2015-00203 (Patent 8,532,231 B2)
`IPR2015-00221 (Patent 8,565,346 B2)
`____________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, BARBARA A. BENOIT, and
`BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Request for Rehearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 15
`
`
`
` Entered: August 27, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC. and ZTE (USA), INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SPH AMERICA, LLC and ELECTRONICS AND
`TELECOMMUNICATIONS
`RESEARCH INSTITUTE,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Cases IPR2015-00203 (Patent 8,532,231 B2)
`IPR2015-00221 (Patent 8,565,346 B2)
`____________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, BARBARA A. BENOIT, and
`BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Request for Rehearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00203 (Patent 8,532,231 B2)
`IPR2015-00221 (Patent 8,565,346 B2)
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Huawei Device USA, Inc. and ZTE (USA), Inc. (collectively,
`“Petitioner”), filed a Request for Rehearing (IPR2015-00203, Paper 14,
`“Reh’g Req.” 1) of the Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`(Paper 13, “Decision” or “Dec.”) in both proceedings. Because the
`rehearing arguments presented are the same for the two cases, we decide
`both rehearing requests in one decision. In the rehearing requests, Petitioner
`argues that we misapprehended or overlooked (1) Alamouti’s teachings of
`space-time block coding, (2) Alamouti’s express teaching that space-time
`block coding can be used in place of frequency-space coding, thus providing
`express motivation to combine Alamouti with Narasimhan, and (3) that
`Narasimhan’s semaphore or TX flag indicates a particular format of a data
`packet. IPR2015-00203, Paper 14, 6–14.
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`When rehearing a decision on petition, the Board will review the
`
`decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of
`discretion may be determined if a decision is based on an erroneous
`interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial
`evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing
`relevant factors. Arnold Partnership v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed.
`
`
`1 Citations are to IPR2015-00203.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00203 (Patent 8,532,231 B2)
`IPR2015-00221 (Patent 8,565,346 B2)
`
`Cir. 2004). For the reasons that follow, Petitioner has not shown that the
`Board abused its discretion.
`In the Decision, we determined that Petitioner had shown that
`Alamouti describes space-time coding, but not space-time block coding as
`claimed. Dec. at 13–14. Petitioner argues that we overlooked the
`description in Jeon at pages 4 and 6 that show that Alamouti teaches space-
`time block coding. Reh’g Req. 8–9. Petitioner, however, did not rely on
`Jeon in its Petition in support of showing that Alamouti describes space-time
`block coding. Accordingly, we could not have overlooked or
`misapprehended Jeon in this light because this is a new theory advanced by
`Petitioner in its rehearing request.
`In any event, we are not persuaded that the portion of Jeon that
`Petitioner now points to, for the first time, describes that the “Alamouti
`[reference] teaches space-time block coding” as asserted. Id. at 9. Only
`page 6 of pages 4 and 6 of Jeon, to which Petitioner now directs us,
`mentions the word “Alamouti” and in the context of “Alamouti code” under
`the header “Space-Time Block Coding (STBC).” Ex. 1006. There is no
`description on Jeon page 6 that explains that “Alamouti code” is related at
`all to the Alamouti reference. Jeon is insufficient to establish that the
`Alamouti reference describes space-time block coding as asserted. Thus, we
`are not persuaded by Petitioner’s new argument.
`In similar vein, Petitioner argues that we overlooked the ETRI
`proposal (Exhibit 1023). Reh’g Req. 9–10. According to Petitioner, the
`ETRI proposal is evidence that Alamouti shows space-time block coding.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00203 (Patent 8,532,231 B2)
`IPR2015-00221 (Patent 8,565,346 B2)
`
`Again, a description of Alamouti space-time block code in a separate
`document bears little on whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`have understood the Alamouti reference to also convey space-time block
`code. There is no description in the ETRI proposal portion to which we are
`directed that explains that “Alamouti space-time block code” is related at all
`to the Alamouti reference. Such evidence is insufficient to establish that the
`Alamouti reference describes space-time block coding as asserted. Thus, we
`are not persuaded by Petitioner’s new argument.
`We also are not persuaded that we overlooked Dr. Williams’
`testimony on whether Alamouti describes space-time block code. We did
`consider his testimony, but gave it little weight because his testimony did not
`disclose the underlying facts on which his conclusory opinion was based.
`Dec. 13–14; Ex. 1002 ¶ 140.
`Petitioner argues that we misapprehended or overlooked that
`Narasimhan’s semaphore or TX flag indicates a particular format of a data
`packet. Reh’g Req. 12–13. We considered the description in Narasimhan
`and the supporting declaration testimony that Narasimhan’s semaphore or
`flag “is used to indicate if transmit diversity is being used to transmit the
`data portions of the frame.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 137. We found that Narasimhan and
`the characterization of Narasimhan by Petitioner’s declarant was insufficient
`to establish that Narasimhan describes information in a signal symbol that
`conveys whether a frame of data is transmitted using a particular type of
`coding. Dec. 15. Thus, we did not misapprehend or overlook Petitioner’s
`evidence in support of what Narasimhan describes.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00203 (Patent 8,532,231 B2)
`IPR2015-00221 (Patent 8,565,346 B2)
`
`
`Petitioner’s newly presented arguments (Reh’g Req. 12) with respect
`to similarities between the description of the involved patents and
`Narasimhan to show that Narasimhan describes a flag indicating a particular
`format of a data packet is misplaced because those arguments were not
`presented previously. We could not have overlooked or misapprehended
`arguments that were not presented previously. In any event, Petitioner’s
`newly presented arguments do not persuade us that we erred with respect to
`our findings regarding what Narsimhan describes.
`Petitioner argues that in making our determination that Petitioner did
`not provide support for a reason why one skilled in the art would have
`combined Narasimhan and Alamouti, we overlooked the fact that Alamouti
`is incorporated by reference in to the disclosure of Narasimhan. According
`to Petitioner, we also overlooked Alamouti’s own statement that data
`encoding can be done in space and time and may also be done in space and
`frequency. Reh’g Req. 13. We did not overlook these assertions. Rather
`we addressed Petitioner’s assertions that data encoding in space and time is
`exchangeable for data encoding done in space and frequency. Dec. 17. We
`further explained that, based on the record before us, something more was
`required: a rationale for making the substitution, which was lacking. Id. at
`17–18.
`For all of the above reasons, Patent Owner’s Requests for Rehearing
`are denied.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00203 (Patent 8,532,231 B2)
`IPR2015-00221 (Patent 8,565,346 B2)
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Paul Hunter
`Christopher C. Bolten
`Troy D. Smith
`Foley & Lardner LLP
`phunter@foley.com
`cbolten@foley.com
`tdsmith@foley.com
`
`Steven A. Moore
`Richard W. Thill
`Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
`steve.moore@pillsburylaw.com
`richard.thill@pillsburylaw.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`SPH
`Wayne Helge
`Donald Jackson
`Davidson Berquist Jackson & Gowdey L.L.P.
`whelge@dbjg.com
`djackson@dbjg.com
`
`ETRI
`HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP
`INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
`sloftis@hunton.com
`
`
`6
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
