Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 13
`Entered: September 7, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`QUALCOMM INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BANDSPEED, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-003161
`Patent 7,477,624 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before BART A. GERSTENBLITH, DAVID C. McKONE, and
`PATRICK M. BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2015-01581 has been joined with this proceeding
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 13
`Entered: September 7, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`QUALCOMM INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BANDSPEED, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-003161
`Patent 7,477,624 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before BART A. GERSTENBLITH, DAVID C. McKONE, and
`PATRICK M. BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2015-01581 has been joined with this proceeding
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00316
`Patent 7,477,624 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`A. Background
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc., MediaTek Inc., and MediaTek USA,
`Inc., filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) to institute an inter partes review of
`claims 9–12 and 21–24 of U.S. Patent No. 7,477,624 B2 (“the ’624 patent”).
`Bandspeed, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) did not file a Preliminary Response. Prior
`to institution, we granted a motion to terminate the proceeding with respect
`to Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. Paper 11. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, in
`our Institution Decision (Paper 12, “Dec.”), we instituted this proceeding as
`to each of the challenged claims.
`After institution, Qualcomm Inc. filed substantially the same petition
`in IPR2015-01581 (IPR2015-01581, Paper 1), together with a Motion for
`Joinder of IPR2015-01581 with the instant proceeding (IPR2015-01581,
`Paper 2). On September 17, 2015, we granted a motion to terminate this
`proceeding with respect to MediaTek Inc. and MediaTek USA, Inc., but not
`as to Patent Owner, leaving only Patent Owner as a party to the proceeding.
`Paper 20. On November 16, 2015, we granted Qualcomm Inc.’s Motion for
`Joinder, joining Qualcomm Inc. to the instant proceeding. Paper 21.
`Qualcomm Inc. (“Petitioner”) is now the sole petitioner.
`After institution of trial, Patent Owner filed a Response (Paper 26,
`“PO Resp.”), and Petitioner filed a Reply to the Patent Owner’s Response
`(Paper 27, “Reply”). An oral argument was held on May 26, 2016, and the
`transcript was entered into the record. Paper 38 (“Tr.”).
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00316
`Patent 7,477,624 B2
`
`
`Petitioner relies on the testimony of Zhi Ding, Ph.D. Ex. 1002 (“Ding
`Decl.”); Ex. 1017 (“Supp. Ding Decl.”). Patent Owner relies on the
`testimony of Jose Luis Melendez, Ph.D. Ex. 2001 (“Melendez Decl.”).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This Decision is a final
`written decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) as to the patentability of the
`challenged claims. Based on the record before us, Petitioner has
`demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 9, 10, 12, 21,
`22, and 24 are unpatentable, but has not demonstrated that claims 11 and 23
`are unpatentable.
`
`
`B. The ’624 Patent
`The ’624 patent was filed on April 3, 2006, as a continuation of U.S.
`Patent Application No. 09/948,488, which was filed on September 6, 2001,
`and issued as U.S. Patent No. 7,027,418. Ex. 1001 [63]. The ’624 patent
`also claims the benefit of the filing date of U.S. Provisional Application
`No. 60/264,594, filed on January 25, 2001. Id. at [60].
`The ’624 patent relates to managing the use of communications
`channels based on channel performance. Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 46–48.
`Figure 2 of the ’624 patent is reproduced below.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00316
`Patent 7,477,624 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 2 is a block diagram that depicts a communications network having
`“master” communications device 210 and multiple “slave” communications
`devices 220 and 230, each of which includes a memory, a processor, and a
`transceiver. Id. at col. 9, ll. 53–63. To manage the use of communications
`channels between the master and slaves via the respective transceivers, an
`initial set of channels is selected based on selection criteria at the start-up of
`the communications network. Id. at col. 6, ll. 19–21. Additional sets of
`channels then are selected periodically for adaptive avoidance of
`interference. Id. at col. 6, ll. 21–23.
`For example, master 210 may select a set of communications channels
`from default communications channels for a specified communications
`protocol, generate identification data for the selected set of channels, and
`transmit the identification data to slave 220. Id. at col. 9, l. 64–col. 10, l. 3.
`If slave 230 is incapable of using the selected set of channels, master 210
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00316
`Patent 7,477,624 B2
`
`communicates with slave 220 using the selected set of communications
`channels and communicates with slave 230 using the default
`communications channels for the specified communications protocol. Id. at
`col. 10, ll. 4–15.
`The ’624 patent describes various techniques for assessing
`performance of communications channels that include the use of special test
`packets (id. at col. 10, l. 33–col. 12, l. 35), a received signal strength
`indicator (“RSSI”) (id. at col. 12, l. 37–col. 13, l. 2), and cyclic redundancy
`checks (“CRC”) (id. at col. 13, l. 50–col. 14, l. 6). Communications
`channels are classified based on channel performance as determined by such
`assessments and according to classification criteria. Id. at col. 14, ll. 63–65.
`In a particular implementation, a “referendum” approach is used in which
`participant devices “vote” whether to use a particular channel. Id. at col. 16,
`ll. 65–66. The votes may be used according to various approaches, such as
`through the use of weighted votes, in determining final channel
`classifications. Id. at col. 17, ll. 25–34.
`
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Independent claim 9 (as amended by a Certificate of Correction dated
`March 17, 2009) is illustrative of the claims at issue:
`9. A computer-readable medium carrying instructions for
`managing
`the use of communications channels
`for a
`communications system, wherein processing of the instructions
`by one or more processors causes:
`
`selecting, based upon performance of a plurality of
`communications channels at a first time, a first set of two or more
`communications channels from the plurality of communications
`channels;
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00316
`Patent 7,477,624 B2
`
`
`the first set of two or more communications channels to be
`
`used for communications between a pair of participants;
`
`selecting, based upon performance of the plurality of
`communications channels at a second time that is later than the
`first time, a second set of two or more communications channels
`from the plurality of communications channels; and
`the second set of two or more communications channels to
`be used for communications between the pair of participants
`instead of the first set of two or more communications channels,
`wherein the pair of participants includes a first participant
`and a second participant, wherein a default set of two or more
`communications channels is associated with a hopping sequence
`and is not changed based on the performance of the plurality of
`communications channels, and the computer-readable medium
`further comprising instructions, which when processed by the
`one or more processors, cause:
`
`the first participant communicating with a third
`participant over the default set of two or more communications
`channels while communicating with the second participant over
`the first set of two or more communications channels and while
`communicating with the second participant over the second set
`of two or more communications channels.
`
`
`D. References
`Petitioner relies on the following references.
`Gerten
`US 6,760,319 B1
`July 6, 2004
`Cuffaro
`US 6,418,317 B1
`July 9, 2002
`Gendel
`US 6,115,407
`Sept. 5, 2000
`Haartsen
`US 7,280,580 B1
`Oct. 9, 2007
`Sage
`US 5,781,582
`July 14, 1998
`
`
`Ex. 1003
`Ex. 1004
`Ex. 1005
`Ex. 1006
`Ex. 1007
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00316
`Patent 7,477,624 B2
`
`
`E. Instituted Grounds of Unpatentability
`We instituted trial on the following grounds of unpatentability.
`Dec. 22–23.
`Reference(s)
`
`Gerten
`Gerten and Cuffaro
`Gendel and Haartsen
`Gendel, Haartsen, and Sage
`
`
`Claims Challenged
`Basis
`§ 102(e) 9, 12, 21, and 24
`§ 103(a) 10, 11, 22, and 23
`§ 103(a) 9, 12, 21, and 24
`§ 103(a) 10 and 22
`
`F. Related Matters
`The ’624 patent has been asserted in several lawsuits in the United
`States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Pet. 1; Paper 6, 2–3.
`Those cases include Bandspeed, Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., 1:14-CV-00436
`(W.D. Tex.) (“Qualcomm Litigation”).
`The ’624 patent is also the subject of inter partes review in
`IPR2015-00314 and IPR2015-00315. U.S. Patent No. 7,903,608 B2 (“the
`’608 patent”), which issued from a continuation application based on the
`application issuing as the ’624 patent, is the subject of IPR2015-00237,
`which was terminated on August 12, 2015 (IPR2015-00237, Paper 19). U.S.
`Patent No. 8,542,643, which is a divisional of the ’608 patent, is the subject
`of Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Bandspeed, Inc., Case IPR2015-00531.
`Cases IPR2015-00314, IPR2015-00315, and IPR2015-00531 were argued
`together with this proceeding at the May 26, 2016, oral hearing.
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00316
`Patent 7,477,624 B2
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Construction
`The Board interprets claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC,
`793 F.3d 1268, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“We conclude that Congress
`implicitly approved the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in
`enacting the AIA.”), aff’d sub nom. Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136
`S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of the broadest reasonable
`interpretation standard); Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg.
`48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`
`1. “hopping sequence”
`Each of challenged claims 9, 10, 22, and 24 recites a “hopping
`sequence.” Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Zhi Ding, attests that the phrase is “a
`well-understood term of art.” Ding Decl. ¶ 35 (citing Ex. 1016, 127–33).
`Consistent with Dr. Ding’s testimony, we applied a preliminary construction
`of “hopping sequence” in the Institution Decision as “the order in which the
`communications network hops among the set of frequencies.” Dec. 7. That
`construction is not contested by Patent Owner, and we adopt it for this Final
`Written Decision.
`
`
`2. “votes to use the particular communications channel”
`The noun phrase “votes to use the particular communications
`channel” is recited in each of challenged claims 11 and 23. The term “vote”
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00316
`Patent 7,477,624 B2
`
`is not defined in the Specification of the ’624 patent. In the Institution
`Decision, we applied a preliminary construction of “votes to use the
`particular communications channel” as “expressions of preference for using
`the particular communications channel,” a construction that rejected
`Petitioner’s further proposal that the phrase alternatively encompasses
`indications whether the communications channel is “good or bad.” Dec. 7–
`8. The parties do not present arguments that cause us to reconsider that
`aspect of the construction.
`Patent Owner “submits that ‘votes to use the particular
`communications channel’ should be construed to mean ‘expressions of
`preference of participants for using the particular communications channel,’”
`with underscoring to indicate words it proposes to add to the Board’s
`preliminary construction. PO Resp. 6. Patent Owner contends that “all of
`the embodiments” discussed in the Specification of the ’624 patent “are
`limited to originating from participant devices involved in the
`communications and are intended to be used to determine the best channels
`for communication among those same participants.” Id. This contention is
`not disputed by Petitioner, and we find no counterexamples in the
`Specification. Patent Owner reasons that omission of reference to
`participants in the construction of the phrase “would be unduly broad and
`not supported by the specification and would not be how a [person of
`ordinary skill in the art] would understand that limitation in view of the
`specification.” Id. at 7–8 (citing Melendez Decl. ¶ 27).
`We are not persuaded by this reasoning. As Petitioner observes, the
`embodiments of the ’624 patent identified by Patent Owner are characterized
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00316
`Patent 7,477,624 B2
`
`as “examples,” and a person of ordinary skill “would understand that the
`example scenarios of the specification are not necessarily limiting on the
`claims.” Reply 3 (citing Ding Supp. Decl. ¶ 6). In addition, Petitioner notes
`that claim language in related patents owned by Patent Owner explicitly
`refers to participants, evidencing Patent Owner’s understanding “how to
`expressly create participant-specific voting requirements in claims.” Id. at 3.
`At the oral hearing, Patent Owner suggested that explicit reference to
`participants in such other claim language “was because it wanted to clarify
`that each participant got a single vote,” and explained its position that, in the
`claims at issue in this proceeding, “participant is implicit in the claim
`language as it is.” Tr. 78:16–25. But the claims are directed to a
`“communications device,” and recite “votes” in the context of what the
`“particular communications channel” “receives.” Nothing within the
`structure of the claims requires resolving the origin of such votes.
`Furthermore, Patent Owner’s proposed construction is inconsistent
`with the construction it agreed to before the district court in the Qualcomm
`Litigation. In that litigation, the parties agreed that the term “vote” should
`be construed as “a binary expression (to use or not to use),” a construction
`that makes no reference to the origin of the “vote” as from a participant or
`otherwise. Ex. 1018, 6. We see no compelling reason to excuse the
`inconsistency by adopting a narrower construction when the Board applies a
`claim-construction standard (broadest reasonable interpretation) that could
`only result in the same or a broader construction. See Amazon.com, Inc. v.
`Barnesandnoble.com, Inc., 239 F.3d 1343, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“A patent
`may not, like a ‘nose of wax,’ be twisted one way to avoid anticipation and
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00316
`Patent 7,477,624 B2
`
`another to find infringement.” (quoting Sterner Lighting, Inc. v. Allied Elec.
`Supply, Inc., 431 F.2d 539, 544 (5th Cir. 1970))).
`Accordingly, we construe “votes to use a particular communications
`channel” as “expressions of preference for using the particular
`communications channel.”
`
`
`3. “while”
`Independent claim 9 and dependent claim 24 require that different sets
`of communications channels be used with the second and third
`communications devices:
`the first participant communicating with a third participant over
`the default set of two or more communications channels while
`communicating with the second participant over the first set of
`two or more communications channels and while communicating
`with the second participant over the second set of two or more
`communications channels
`
`(emphases added). In the Institution Decision, we construed “while” in this
`context such that the claim language does not require simultaneous
`communications, only that communication can take place with multiple
`devices during the same time period, such as with interleaved
`communications. Dec. 11. Such a construction is consistent with a general-
`dictionary definition of “while” as “during the time that.” See Ex. 1012,
`1376; Pet. 20 n.7. Patent Owner addresses that construction as follows:
`To the extent the Board is suggesting that a device need not be
`capable of
`simultaneous communication with multiple
`participants over different sets of channels but is still requiring
`that the device, in a single configuration, be capable of
`communication with multiple participants over different sets of
`
`11
`
`
`
`to
`
`this claim
`
`IPR2015-00316
`Patent 7,477,624 B2
`
`
`channels, Patent Owner does not object
`construction.
`
`PO Resp. 8 (emphasis added). Patent Owner’s characterization presents a
`gloss on the construction we applied in the Institution Decision by requiring
`that a device communicate over different sets of channels “in a single
`configuration.” But Patent Owner provides insufficient reasoning to support
`a contention that the claim language is limited to “a single configuration” in
`the manner proposed.
`We construe “while,” as recited in claims 9 and 24, as requiring that
`communication take place with multiple devices during the same time
`period, such as with interleaved communications, but not requiring
`simultaneous communication with the multiple devices.
`
`
`B. Grounds Based on Gerten
`Gerten relates to improving noise and interference immunity by
`“removing channels in a frequency hopping scheme having strong
`interference or interferers in a wireless communication system.” Ex. 1003,
`col. 2, ll. 34–37. Figure 1 of Gerten is reproduced below.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00316
`Patent 7,477,624 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 1 illustrates operation of three piconets 10, 12, and 14 that form a
`scatternet. Id. at col. 3, ll. 8–10. A piconet is a collection of devices that can
`be connected via Bluetooth technology in an ad hoc fashion. Id. at col. 3,
`ll. 10–12. As shown in the drawing, first piconet 10 has a plurality of
`mobile units 20 that include a master mobile unit and multiple slave mobile
`units, one of which is also a slave of second piconet 12. Id. at col. 3, ll. 27–
`33. Gerten defines a “master unit” as a “device in a piconet whose clock and
`hopping sequence are employed to synchronize other devices in the
`piconet—devices in a piconet that are not the master are typically slaves.”
`Id. at col. 3, ll. 22–26.
`In determining channels to be avoided, a master device in the piconet
`determines which channels have the strongest interference. Id. at col. 4,
`ll. 50–51. This may be accomplished with “signal strength measurements on
`N number of channels (N being an integer) of the frequency hopping scheme
`to determine M number of channels (M being an integer less than or equal to
`N) to avoid.” Id. at col. 2, ll. 37–41. The frequency hopping scheme then is
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00316
`Patent 7,477,624 B2
`
`modified to avoid transmission over the M channels, and the M channels to
`avoid can be communicated to wireless units involved in the communication
`system, allowing members of the communication system to frequency hop
`together over the remaining N–M good channels in a modified frequency
`hopping scheme. Id. at col. 2, ll. 41–52, col. 4, ll. 47–58. “[T]he master
`device periodically updates the channels to be avoided,” resulting in a
`similar modification to the frequency hopping sequences. Id. at col. 4,
`ll. 58–65.
`
`
`1. Claim 9
`Petitioner challenges independent claim 9 as anticipated by Gerten.
`Pet. 13–20. In its analysis drawing a correspondence between the limitations
`of independent claim 9 and the disclosure of Gerten, Petitioner identifies the
`piconet of Gerten as a “communications system,” noting that the central
`control system in the master mobile unit includes a computer-readable
`medium and one or more processors to cause the device to perform
`functions. Pet. 13–14 (citing Ex. 1003, col. 3, ll. 8–12, 40–48, col. 3, ll. 1–
`6). Petitioner further draws a correspondence between the recited “first
`participant” and the master mobile unit of Gerten, and identifies the slave
`units as functioning as “second” and “third” participants. Id. at 18. In
`addition, Petitioner identifies the recited selection of communications
`channels as disclosed by Gerten’s description of modified hopping schemes,
`noting Gerten’s specific disclosure of periodic updating of the modified
`frequency hopping schemes to conclude that Gerten discloses selection at
`different times. Id. at 14–15, 16–17. As Petitioner observes, the
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00316
`Patent 7,477,624 B2
`
`communications channels are used for communications by an identified pair
`of participants. Id. at 16, 17. We agree with Petitioner’s identified
`correspondences and find that these claim limitations are disclosed by
`Gerten.
`In addressing independent claim 9’s specific requirement that
`different sets of channels be used with the second and third communications
`devices, Petitioner reasons that the process summarized above may be
`applied by the master device to each of the slave devices separately: “the
`master device of Gerten performs a service discovery request to determine if
`each slave device has interference avoidance capabilities.” Id. at 19
`(emphasis added) (citing Ding Decl. ¶ 53; Ex. 1003, col. 4, ll. 38–51). Thus,
`Petitioner argues, if one slave has such interference avoidance capabilities,
`communications with that slave may take place using a modified frequency
`hopping scheme; if another (legacy) slave lacks such interference avoidance
`capabilities, communications take place using a normal mode with default
`communications channels that are not changed based on channel
`performance. Id. (citing Ding Decl. ¶ 54); see id. at 17–18. Thus, Petitioner
`concludes, the recited communications with the third communications
`device over default communications channels occur “while” communicating
`with the second communications device over the first and second sets of
`communications channels, as we have construed the term “while.”
`Petitioner supports this reasoning with testimony by Dr. Ding, which we
`credit. Id. at 19–20 (citing Ding Decl. ¶¶ 52–54).
`Patent Owner responds that “the Gerten device is not capable of and
`expressly teaches away from performing this functionality.” PO Resp. 15
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00316
`Patent 7,477,624 B2
`
`(citing Melendez Decl. ¶ 32). Patent Owner contends that “Gerten’s
`disclosure is directed toward eliminating channels for use in an entire
`piconet as opposed to eliminating channels for use by certain participants
`within a piconet.” Id. (emphasis added). Patent Owner argues that Gerten
`does not disclose a selection kernel capable of maintaining synchronization
`between a master and more than one slave in a piconet, with the master and
`one slave using a default set of channels while the same master and a
`different slave use a different set of channels. Id. We are not persuaded that
`the absence of a specific teaching of such a selection kernel supports the
`conclusion that one of skill in the art would understand Gerten to function in
`the manner Patent Owner suggests.
`In this instance, Petitioner refers to two embodiments of Gerten “in
`which a first participant communicates with a second participant via a
`normal sequence and with another participant via an adaptive hopping
`sequence.” Reply 5. First, Figure 3 of Gerten is reproduced below.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00316
`Patent 7,477,624 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 3 illustrates “methodology for determining and communicating
`channels to be avoided to a remote device.” Ex. 1003, col. 2, ll. 4–6. As
`illustrated in the drawing, a master unit performs a discovery process
`(block 110) upon connecting with a new slave unit. Ding Decl. ¶¶ 58, 61. If
`the slave unit is capable of using interference avoidance, the master unit
`begins the process of determining a modified set of channels for use
`(block 120). Id. ¶ 46. If a second slave unable to use interference avoidance
`enters the piconet, standard frequency hopping is used. Supp. Ding Decl.
`¶ 9. Under Patent Owner’s characterization of Gerten, entry of the second
`slave into the network would require the first slave necessarily to revert back
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00316
`Patent 7,477,624 B2
`
`to the default hopping sequence. Id. ¶ 10. But this would undermine the
`stated benefits of Gerten, which explicitly discloses:
`The above process can be applied to a Bluetooth example
`and includes identification of a Bluetooth device’s ability to
`support interference avoidance, the measurements of signal
`strength on all channels and identification of which channel
`should not be used without violating the FCC rules, a method of
`modifying the Bluetooth hop sequence so that it will avoid
`channels containing strong or fixed interferers while still
`supporting standard Bluetooth hopping with other non-enabled
`members of the piconet and a method of relating necessary
`interference avoidance information to the remote Bluetooth
`devices.
`
`Ex. 1003, col. 4, l. 66–col. 5, l. 9 (emphasis added).
`Second, Figure 1 of Gerten, reproduced above, illustrates an
`embodiment in which a single mobile unit acts as a master in one piconet
`and acts as a slave in a second piconet, where the two piconets are expressly
`described as “independent” and “non-synchronized.” Ex. 1003, col. 3,
`ll. 15–39. As a slave in one piconet, the mobile unit may use interference
`avoidance while maintaining a normal hopping sequence in another piconet
`with a legacy slave unable to use adaptive methods. See Supp. Ding Decl.
`¶ 12. Accordingly, a first participant (i.e., the mobile unit that acts as both
`master and slave) is able to communicate with a participant via a standard
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00316
`Patent 7,477,624 B2
`
`hopping sequence while communicating with a different participant via an
`adaptive hopping sequence. See Reply 7–82; Supp. Ding Decl. ¶ 12.
`Nor are we persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that Gerten
`teaches away from the claim limitations. See PO Resp. 15. A prior-art
`reference does not teach away from the claimed subject matter unless the
`prior-art reference also criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the
`solution claimed. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`In support of this contention, Patent Owner relies on testimony by
`Dr. Melendez that “the only selection kernels (Gerten Fig. 6 and Fig. 7)
`disclosed for the transceiver (Gerten Fig. 2) in Gerten are expressly not
`capable of providing the subject claimed limitations of the [’]624 patent as is
`discussed below, and so would serve only to teach away from the claim.”
`Melendez Decl. ¶ 32. Even if Dr. Melendez’s statement is accurate, such
`examples in Gerten do not meet the “teaching away” standard because the
`mere use of examples in a reference that function in a different way does not
`criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed. In
`addition, “[t]eaching away is irrelevant to anticipation.” Seachange Int’l,
`Inc. v. C-Cor, Inc., 413 F.3d 1361, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`We conclude that Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of
`the evidence, that independent claim 9 is anticipated by Gerten.
`
`
`
`2 Petitioner’s argument regarding this embodiment was not made in the
`Petition, but is properly responsive to Patent Owner’s argument that the
`Gerten device is not capable of performing the functionality recited in the
`claims. Nevertheless, we note that our decision does not hinge on this
`embodiment because of the other Gerten embodiment discussed above.
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00316
`Patent 7,477,624 B2
`
`
`2. Claim 12
`Petitioner challenges claim 12 as anticipated by Gerten. Pet. 20–23.
`Dependent claim 12 recites instructions that cause sets of communications
`channels to be loaded into registers of the communications devices after
`selecting the sets of communications channels. In addressing these
`limitations, Petitioner observes that Gerten discloses that the master device
`and slave devices include register banks that are loaded with synthesizer
`code words. Id. at 20–21 (citing Ex. 1003, col. 2, ll. 47–52, col. 7, ll. 11–
`18). Petitioner contends that references in claim 12 to “causing the . . . set[s]
`of two or more communications channels to be loaded into . . . register[s]”
`does not require that the channels themselves be loaded into registers, but
`that channel identifiers be loaded. Id. at 20.
`Although the claim does not expressly recite “identifiers,” Petitioner’s
`contention is consistent with the Specification of the ’624 patent, which
`explains that “‘after a participant has received the set of selected
`communications channels, the participant stores data that indicates the
`new set of selected channels.’” Id. at 21 (quoting Ex. 1001, col. 19, ll. 27–
`30, emphasis by Petitioner). Petitioner’s reasoning that the synthesizer code
`words described by Gerten act to identify channels used in the frequency
`hopping sequences and are loaded in registers of the master and slave
`devices is supported by the declarant testimony of Dr. Ding, which we
`credit. See Ding Decl. ¶ 58.
`Patent Owner does not raise an argument directed to the express
`limitations of claim 12, and particularly does not challenge Petitioner’s
`contention that Gerten’s teaching of loading channel identifiers discloses this
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00316
`Patent 7,477,624 B2
`
`limitation. Patent Owner’s only position with respect to claim 12 is that it
`“depends from independent claim 9 and, therefore, contains all of the
`limitations of claim 9.” PO Resp. 19. Because we disagree with Patent
`Owner’s position expressed with respect to claim 9, we also disagree with it
`with respect to claim 12.
`We conclude that Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of
`the evidence, that claim 12 is anticipated by Gerten.
`
`
`3. Claims 21 and 24
`Petitioner challenges claims 21 and 24 as anticipated by Gerten.
`Pet. 23–24. Independent claim 21 and dependent claim 24 each recite a
`combination of limitations that appear in claims 9 and 12. Petitioner
`provides a chart explaining where Petitioner addresses these limitations in its
`analysis of claims 9 and 12. Patent Owner does not address claim 21.3 For
`claim 24, Patent Owner asserts that the “first participant communicating . . .”
`limitation of claim 9 is recited in those claims and refers to its arguments
`regarding that limitation as presented in the context of claim 9. PO
`Resp. 19. We have reviewed Petitioner’s claim charts, and we agree that
`Gerten discloses each and every element of claims 21 and 24 for the same
`reasons discussed with respect to claim 9.
`We conclude that Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of
`the evidence, that claims 21 and 24 are anticipated by Gerten.
`
`
`3 Patent Owner appears to concede that claim 21 is anticipated by Gerten.
`See PO Resp. 9–10 (“[W]ith the exception of Ground 1 [anticipation by
`Gerten], claim 21, [the] proposed grounds of unpatentability fail for several
`reasons.”).
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00316
`Patent 7,477,624 B2
`
`
`
`
`4. Claims 10 and 22
`Petitioner challenges claims 10 and 22 as unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Gerten and Cuffaro. Pet. 24–31. Claims 10 and 22
`depend respectively from independent claims 9 and 21, and recite that “only
`one communications channel” of the first and second sets of two or more
`communications channels is used at each hop in the hopping sequence.
`Petitioner relies on Gerten’s disclosure of Bluetooth frequency hopping as
`an example, noting that “[i]n a hopping sequence based on a [frequency
`hopping] protocol such as used in Bluetooth, only one communications
`channel is used for communications between a first device and a second
`device at each hop.” Id. at 26 (citing Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 13–15, col. 1,
`ll. 39–55; Ding Decl. ¶¶ 94, 95). We agree with this identification.
`Each of claims 10 and 22 also recites that “the performance of the
`plurality of communications channels is based on channel performance data
`that is transmitted over one or more of the plurality of communications
`channels based on the hopping sequence according to the frequency hopping
`protocol.” Petitioner acknowledges that “Gerten does not explicitly disclose
`this limitation.” Id. at 28. For this limitation, Petitioner relies on Cuffaro,
`which relates to managing frequency allocations to a cell in cellular
`telephone systems. Ex. 1004, col. 1, ll. 7–9. Cuffaro discloses transmission
`of performance data from remote devices to a base station, which Petitioner
`respectively associates with the slave and master devices of Gerten.
`See Pet. 28–29. A quality metric is obtained from measurements of both
`assigned and unassigned frequency channels that are reported back to the
`
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00316
`Patent 7,477,624 B2
`
`base station. Ex. 1004, col. 7, ll. 23–47. Because Cuffaro does not limit the
`type of communications link used for such reporting, Petitioner reasons, and
`we agree, that “one skilled in the
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
