`571-272-7822
`
`IPR2015-01664, Paper No. 23
`January 12, 2017
`
`
`
`RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`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 IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`Technology Center 2400
`Oral Hearing Held: Thursday, October 6, 2016
`
`Before: JAMESON LEE, JUSTIN BUSCH (via video link),
`and J. JOHN LEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday,
`October 6, 2016, at 1:30 p.m., Hearing Room B, taken at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`REPORTED BY: RAYMOND G. BRYNTESON, RMR,
`
`CRR, RDR
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`J. ANDREW LOWES, ESQ.
`CLINT WILKINS, PH.D., ESQ.
`Haynes and Boone LLP
`2505 North Plano Road, Suite 4000
`Richardson, Texas 75082
`972-680-7557
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JENNIFER WELLS, ESQ.
`Ericsson Representative
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`SHARON A. HWANG, ESQ.
`RAJENDRA A. CHIPLUNKAR, ESQ.
`McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd.
`500 West Madison Street, 34th Floor
`Chicago, Illinois 60661
`312-775-8000
`
`JAMES HIETALA, ESQ.
`Intellectual Ventures Representative
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`(1:30 p.m.)
`JUDGE BUSCH: Good afternoon, everyone.
`Welcome. This afternoon we have oral argument for
`IPR2015- 01664, captioned Ericsson, Incorporated and
`Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson versus Intellectual Ventures
`II LLC.
`
`I'm Judge Busch, joining remotely from Detroit.
`In the room with you, you have Judge Jameson Lee and Judge
`John Lee.
`Let's start with the parties' appearances, please,
`and start with Petitioner.
`MR. LOWES: Thank you, Your Honor. This is
`Andrew Lowes. I'm lead counsel for Petitioner, Ericsson.
`And with me today at counsel table is Dr. Clint Wilkins,
`backup counsel, and also with us today is Jennifer Wells,
`in-house counsel for Ericsson.
`JUDGE BUSCH: Thank you. And for Patent
`
`Owner?
`
`MS. HWANG: Good afternoon, Your Honor.
`Sharon Hwang for Patent Owner, Intellectual Ventures. With
`me today is Raj Chiplunkar. And we also have from
`Intellectual Ventures James Hietala. Thank you so much.
`JUDGE BUSCH: Thank you. Thank you again and
`welcome again. Our trial order set forth the procedures for
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`today's hearing. I'm sure you are both familiar with it but I
`would like to briefly remind everyone of a few things.
`First, keep in mind that I may not be able to see
`the screen that you may be projecting any sort of exhibits or
`demonstratives on, so when referring to exhibits or
`demonstratives, please mention the exhibit and page number
`or the demonstrative slide number. This also helps for clarity
`in the record.
`Also, if you step away from the microphones I will
`not be able to hear you, so please make sure that when you are
`presenting anything you are near the microphone.
`Each party will have 45 minutes total time to
`present arguments. Petitioner has the burden and goes first
`and may reserve time for rebuttal at the start of its argument
`if it wishes. Patent Owner then has the opportunity to present
`its response.
`I will try to give each of you a warning as you
`near the end of your time. So with respect to that, Mr. Lowes,
`do you want perceive reserving any time for rebuttal?
`MR. LOWES: Yes, Your Honor. I would like to
`reserve 10 minutes for rebuttal, please.
`JUDGE BUSCH: Okay. Thank you. Unless there
`are any questions from either Petitioner or Patent Owner,
`please speak up if you have any, otherwise Petitioner may
`begin when ready.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`
`MR. LOWES: First, I think, Judge Lee and Judge
`Lee, would you like paper copies of the demonstratives?
`JUDGE JAMESON LEE: I would like to have
`
`them, yes.
`
`MR. LOWES: Okay. My colleague here will
`provide those.
`JUDGE JAMESON LEE: Thank you.
`JUDGE JOHN LEE: Thank you.
`MR. LOWES: I think I'm ready.
`JUDGE BUSCH: You may begin.
`MR. LOWES: Thank you. Again, I'm Andrew
`Lowes, lead counsel for Petitioner, Ericsson, in
`IPR2015- 1664. In terms of, as we have already discussed, I
`would like to reserve 10 minutes for rebuttal.
`With my 35 minutes of presentation on the initial
`portion I would like to divide that as follows: First just
`provide a brief overview, particularly of claim 8 to the '431
`patent, along with a brief summary of the prior art references
`that are being applied to the claim, followed by a discussion
`of the evidence and arguments from the record, both that
`occurred prior to institution as well as those arguments and
`evidence that have come in since institution.
`As the evidence will show, the Board's initial
`conclusion set forth in the Institution Decision should remain
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`unchanged. And claims 8 through 12 and 18 through 22
`should be found unpatentable over the cited references.
`For the remainder of my presentation I will be
`referring to demonstrative exhibits in Ericsson, ERIC -1023,
`otherwise known just as Exhibit 1023. And when referencing
`slide numbers it will be from that exhibit. If you would,
`please, go to slide 5 of Exhibit 1023.
`This is a reproduction of claim 8 from the '431
`patent. You can see it has been annotated to show three
`different areas of the claim. The first in the upper portion is
`the core-band. These limitations relate generally to the
`concept of a core-band and how that's formed by the plurality
`of subgroups and other features.
`The middle portion of the claim relates to the
`features of a primary preamble that is transmitted. The
`preamble has a number of properties that you can see here.
`And then finally the third element is the variable
`bandwidth multi-subcarrier systems aspect of the claim.
`For our purposes today I believe we will primarily
`be talking about element 1, the core-band, and element 3, the
`variable bandwidth aspect.
`Our next slide, slide 6, please. With respect to the
`prior art, as explained in the petition, each of the references
`disclose a complementary aspect of a communication system.
`Detailed reasons have been articulated why each reference
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`would be combined, as set forth in the petition, and as
`supported by the expert declaration provided by Dr. Haas.
`Dulin is the primary reference. It discloses an OFDMA
`communication system that allows the amount of bandwidth
`utilized in any given time period to be varied. It talks in
`terms of utilizing frequency blocks within those bandwidths to
`change how much bandwidth is actually being utilized.
`The next reference is Hwang. Hwang discloses
`that you can actually have variable operating channel
`bandwidths, so the maximum available bandwidth that is
`available to the transmitter can be varied as well.
`Move to slide 7, please, of Exhibit 1023. The
`Yamaura reference relates to aspects of control for a
`communication system, particularly an OFDM communication
`system, and provides an improvement that you would have a
`narrow band of control signals in the first portion of the
`frame, which all of the receivers can decode, and determine if
`the calls are for them and helps set up call signals without
`decoding the entire width of the band.
`And as we will discuss later in the petition,
`Yamaura's operating bandwidth can be scaled according to the
`principles of Hwang by varying the number of subcarriers.
`Slide 8, please. Yamaura teaches that good
`correlation properties are important for the detection of
`control signals, but it doesn't go on to describe what kind of
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`properties would be desirable and what are those sequences,
`whereas Hwang actually does disclose that, primarily in the
`GCL, or Generalized Chirp-Like sequences, that have good
`auto-correlation, good cross- correlation, as well as a small
`peak-to- average power ratio, as set forth in the claim.
`All of these references will be discussed in more
`detail as we get into specific arguments and move through the
`slides.
`
`Could we please move to page 9? Page 9 of
`Exhibit 1023, again, claim 8 -- and, Judge Busch, I should
`ask, can you hear me okay?
`JUDGE BUSCH: I can hear you fine. I don't
`know if there was something that just got discussed, and that I
`did not hear.
`JUDGE JAMESON LEE: The Court Reporter
`suspected that papers are covering the microphone for the
`Court Reporter. He is right.
`MR. LOWES: Okay. Very good. Referring to
`slide 9 of Exhibit 1023. Claim 8 is reproduced on the
`left-hand side and portions of the claim are highlighted that
`are in dispute between the parties based on the briefing,
`particularly the Patent Owner's response.
`Specifically with respect to the core-band portion
`of the claim, the claim language of "circuitry configured to
`transmit a broadcast channel in an Orthogonal Frequency
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`Division Multiple Access, OFDMA, core-band," the claim
`construction for the "transmitting a broadcast channel in an
`OFDMA core-band," that's in dispute between the parties as
`well as the application of that claim language.
`Likewise, with respect to the last portion of the
`claim, the "circuitry configured to transmit control and data
`channels using a variable band including a second plurality of
`subcarrier groups, wherein the variable band includes at least
`the core-band," specifically the construction of variable band
`has been -- a new construction for variable band has been
`asserted by the Patent Owner, and that construction is in
`dispute as well as the application to the prior art.
`And, finally, the Patent Owner has argued against
`the reasons to combine articulated in the petition and we will
`address those as well. I would like to go to slide 13 of
`Exhibit 1023. Here we are moving to the first bullet A.
`Slide 14, please. Slide 14 of Exhibit 1023, this
`relates to the construction of circuitry to transmit a broadcast
`channel in an OFDMA core-band, or in claim 18 it is
`transmitting by a base station a broadcast channel.
`Here it is Petitioner's position that no construction
`is necessary. It is simple terminology. The claim terms
`simply requires transmitting a broadcast channel in an OFDM
`core-band.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`
`JUDGE JAMESON LEE: Can I ask you about
`
`this?
`
`MR. LOWES: Yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE JAMESON LEE: Is it true that a channel
`essentially can span a range of frequencies? Is it fair to say
`that?
`
`MR. LOWES: A range of frequencies, so multiple
`subcarriers?
`JUDGE JAMESON LEE: Well, it isn't limited to
`just one particular frequency, period, right; a channel includes
`a range of frequencies over which communication can take
`place?
`
`MR. LOWES: Yes, a frequency -- the subcarriers,
`you can have one subcarrier. You can have multiple
`subcarriers. So it can span multiple frequencies, but then a
`channel in this context is also defined in time. So it is a
`frequency amount as well as limited by time.
`JUDGE JAMESON LEE: Yeah, as far as
`frequency goes it can span more than one frequency?
`MR. LOWES: It can?
`JUDGE JAMESON LEE: It can.
`MR. LOWES: Yes.
`JUDGE JAMESON LEE: So what does it mean to
`say transmit a channel? Does that mean all of the frequencies
`over which they may transmit has to be within something,
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`within the claim limit clause of transmit a broadcast channel
`in something? Does that mean all of the frequencies within
`which that channel may transmit has to be located within
`something?
`MR. LOWES: No, Your Honor, it does not. The
`patent discloses, particularly figure 3, utilization of a channel
`and selecting different subcarriers, so different aspects of the
`frequency, for transmission within a channel. So you only
`have to transmit a part of any given frequency or channel.
`Okay. So it is Patent Owner's -- Patent Owner has
`argued now in the Patent Owner Response that the claim term
`should mean transmitting a broadcast channel by multiplexing
`the broadcast channel information using OFDMA onto
`subcarriers within the limits of a core-band.
`And these additional limitations concerning how it
`is transmitted do not appear in the claim. And then there is
`no argument about it in the briefing. And it appears that
`really the question is within the limits of a core-band and does
`the claim require that.
`If we could go back to slide 13 of Exhibit 1023.
`Here within the claim the drafter originally said, with respect
`to the primary preamble, which is about eight or nine lines
`down, it says that the primary preamble, being a direct
`sequence in the time domain with a frequency component
`confined within the core-band, or being an OFDM symbol
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`corresponding to a particular frequency pattern within the
`core-band.
`So the drafter of the patent knew how to express
`requiring that it be confined within a particular band. Here
`they did it for the primary preamble. That was not done with
`respect to the transmitter broadcast channel. So reading those
`limitations into transmitting a broadcast channel is
`inappropriate.
`JUDGE JAMESON LEE: I have a question. I'm
`used to seeing the word transmit coupled with messages,
`transmit a message, but here we have transmitting a channel.
`Can you explain what that means? A channel is
`not something you transmit or, if it is, can you explain why?
`MR. LOWES: It is in this case that it is -- it is a
`segment of frequency and also a segment in time. And within
`that is the information. And it is defined by what the
`information is in that. For Yamaura the BCH, the Broadcast
`Channel, is sending cell identification information.
`JUDGE JAMESON LEE: Right. So I'm used to
`seeing transmitting information, transmitting data,
`transmitting messages.
`So does the prior art use similar language, like
`transmit a channel, or is that something peculiar with this
`particular patent?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`
`MR. LOWES: I think it uses it in terms of the
`definition for broadcast, BCH, used in Yamaura, as Dr. Haas
`explained, that's broadcast channel. That's shorthand for
`broadcast channel. So there it is defining --
`JUDGE JAMESON LEE: I'm talking about the
`usage, though. Does the art typically say transmit a channel
`instead of transmit data within a frequency in the channel?
`MR. LOWES: I think the best indication is
`looking at the '431, and it talks kind of in both terms. It talks
`about what is being transmitted within channels. And it talks
`about the preamble, cell identification, band request, and so it
`is talking about -- and then it says those are essential control
`channels.
`
`JUDGE JAMESON LEE: So I guess the question
`is does any of the prior art use similar language, like transmit
`a channel, instead of saying transmitting a message by use of
`the channel?
`MR. LOWES: I believe Yamaura talks about
`transmitting BCH. My colleague, Mr. Wilkins, well, we will
`find a citation for you.
`JUDGE JAMESON LEE: So that's typical in the
`art to say transmit a channel?
`MR. LOWES: It certainly is in the context of the
`art we have before us.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`JUDGE JAMESON LEE: And that simply means
`transmit data with it by use of that channel?
`MR. LOWES: Yes, and in this context it identifies
`the type of data. It is control information. It is not really
`data. It is not user data. It is control information. In
`Yamaura's context it is base station identification.
`JUDGE BUSCH: Can you tell me where, in the
`'431 patent, where it describes what this broadcast channel is?
`MR. LOWES: It doesn't exactly describe the
`broadcast channel per say. It gives an example of control
`channels, if we go to, I believe it is column 5.
`So at column 5, line 8, of the '431 patent, it says:
`"In one embodiment relevant or essential radio control signals
`such as preambles, ranging signals, bandwidth request and/or
`bandwidth allocation are transmitted within the core-band. In
`addition to the essential control channels, a set of data
`channels and their related dedicated control channels are
`placed within the core-band to maintain radio operation."
`So from this statement I understand them to be
`saying that the preambles, ranging signals, bandwidth
`requests, are examples of essential control channels.
`JUDGE BUSCH: And is it your understanding that
`those are the same as what is recited as broadcast channels?
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`
`MR. LOWES: I think those are examples of
`broadcast channels. Each one of those would be a channel, a
`channel of information, that is broadcast.
`JUDGE BUSCH: But are you saying that it is not
`your position that -- let me start over.
`Does the broadcast channel in the '431 patent only
`broadcast in what is considered the core-band? Is it only in
`the frequency band of w hat is the core-band?
`MR. LOWES: In terms of -- I don't believe the
`term broadcast channel is used in the '431 patent.
`JUDGE BUSCH: I couldn't find it. That's why I
`was trying to understand it a little better.
`MR. LOWES: Right. I don't believe it is. I
`believe these are all examples of broadcast channels provided
`in the '431 patent. The preambles, the ranging signals, the
`bandwidth request, I think another discussion about broadcast
`is actually in column 3 of the '431 patent.
`And, again, all of this is about operation of a base
`station and it is setting up the downlink preamble. So in
`column 3, line 52, it says: "The downlink transmission in
`each frame begins with a downlink preamble, which can be the
`first or more of the OFDM symbols in the first downlink. The
`downlink preamble is used at a base station to broadcast radio
`network information such as synchronization and cell
`identification." So these are examples of broadcast.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`
`JUDGE JOHN LEE: So mapped to the claim
`language, that would be a downlink preamble which is
`transmitted over the broadcast channel within the core -band;
`that's how you would map it to the claim language?
`MR. LOWES: Correct, correct, and particularly
`mapping the cell identification. Mapping that to the claim
`and then the same in the prior art, the broadcast channel of
`Yamaura is cell identification, and so there is a one-to-one
`mapping between what is disclosed in the '431 and what's
`disclosed in Yamaura.
`JUDGE JAMESON LEE: Can you turn to figure
`17 of Yamaura? I think it was on your slide 7.
`MR. LOWES: Yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE JAMESON LEE: The BCH and FCH is
`what you regard as the broadcast channel?
`MR. LOWES: Those are examples of broadcast
`
`channels.
`
`JUDGE JAMESON LEE: How many subcarriers
`are within each of BCH and FCH?
`MR. LOWES: In this example as described in the
`specification it is just SC1 and SC2, so two subcarriers.
`JUDGE JAMESON LEE: That's it? There is
`nothing else? There is nothing else greater than or above SC2
`and nothing else beneath SC1?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`
`MR. LOWES: Not in this example. It is described
`later in Yamaura that you can have more. So for this narrow
`band, which is what it is disclosing, it provides the example
`of two subcarriers, but it says it could be one, two, three or
`more subcarriers could make up that narrow band, because the
`full range of 20 megahertz is accomplished by many
`subcarriers.
`JUDGE JAMESON LEE: That's why I'm a little
`confused. It sounds like the BCH and FCH is not a fixed
`thing. It could be as large or as small as you want it to be.
`MR. LOWES: I would disagree with that, Your
`Honor. Based on Yamaura, the whole point is that within
`those time slots, so those are the time slots where the
`transmission of BCH and FCH occur, and within those time
`slots only the subcarriers that the system has designated for
`the narrow bands will be utilized. And in this example that's
`just going to be subcarrier 1 and subcarrier 2.
`JUDGE JAMESON LEE: I see. For each example
`only the particular ones shown are the actual frequencies that
`are active for sending the control signals?
`MR. LOWES: That's correct, within that time
`period. So within the frame, BCH has a designated time
`period. And within that time period there is only a certain
`number of subcarriers which are active to send information.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`
`JUDGE JAMESON LEE: So tell me how do you
`find the broadcast channel to be within the core-band by
`looking at that figure?
`MR. LOWES: So the core-band is the small -- it is
`smaller than any operating channel bandwidth. And so in this
`instance we have -- Hwang describes operating channel
`bandwidths, but here Yamaura says it is a narrow set of
`control signals, and it defines what those are. And in this
`embodiment it is defining those narrow bands as just being
`SC1 and SC2, so only the two subcarriers, and that's the only
`thing that is going to be transmitted in the broadcast
`preamble, BCH and FCH.
`And, in fact, to achieve the benefits of Yamaura,
`which is that the receivers don't have to process as much
`information, their filters are going to be set so that all they
`receive is SC1 and SC2. And so that's how it is limiting what
`is in the core-band. And so since those are the only active
`carriers sending information, that's how the BCH is within
`that core-band.
`JUDGE JAMESON LEE: Based on your
`explanation in every example the channel is going to be
`within the core-band?
`MR. LOWES: I would disagree with that as well.
`There is another channel here called ACH, which is another
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`control channel. In Yamaura ACH is a full bandwidth
`channel, so it utilizes the full 20 megahertz bandwidth.
`So it is the specialized channels at the beginning
`of the frame, broadcast preamble -- in the time slot of a
`broadcast preamble, BCH and FCH.
`JUDGE JAMESON LEE: Alright. Thank you.
`JUDGE BUSCH: So am I summarizing this
`correctly that your view of what Yamaura discloses is that
`these channels, the BCH and FCH are each separately a
`broadcast channel and they are transmitting in a core-band
`because they are only using in that channel, that time slot,
`they are only using those two or whatever other examples
`disclosed by Yamaura are disclosed as using?
`MR. LOWES: Yes, Your Honor, that's correct. In
`fact, maybe --
`JUDGE BUSCH: Could I go back to your -- sorry.
`Go ahead.
`MR. LOWES: I was going to say maybe we could
`move on a little more to the application of the claim language
`to the prior art, but did you have a question, Judge Busch?
`JUDGE BUSCH: Before you do that let's go back
`to column 5 of the '431. That's the portion you were pointing
`out about the broadcast channels, as far as your assumption of
`the best reference to what it is referring to.
`MR. LOWES: Yes.
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`
`JUDGE BUSCH: Is it your understanding that
`they are using the phrases control signals and control channels
`interchangeably here? The first sentence reads that you have
`relevant or essential radio control signals such as preambles,
`ranging signals, bandwidth request, and/or bandwidth
`allocation are transmitted within the core-band. That fits with
`Judge Lee's understanding of data being transmitted.
`The next sentence says "in addition to the essential
`control channels." Are we to assume that these essential
`control channels are the same as the control signals that were
`just previously referenced?
`MR. LOWES: I think that there is some use in the
`patent of terms to mean the same thing. And so I think that is
`right. It is referring to the information that is being
`transmitted but they are defining that time period in a
`channel.
`
`So it is similar to Yamaura where you have a time
`period that is for the BCH. The BCH is what is being
`transmitted, the base station information.
`So I believe that's what the patent is referring to.
`JUDGE JOHN LEE: So if I understood what you
`just said correctly, what you are saying is that the essential
`radio control signals are transmitted within the essential
`control channels and that's really all that is transmitted on
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`those essential control channels, so in effect they are the same
`thing?
`
`MR. LOWES: Right. That's my understanding of
`what the patent is disclosing.
`If we could go to slide 19 of Exhibit 1023. Here is
`the combination of references shown graphically by Dr. Haas
`where we have the control channels, the broadcast channel in
`the front portion of the frame. So you have got broadcast
`preamble followed by BCH, followed by FCH, and then
`Dulin's teaching of dividing or using or varying the
`frequency, the bandwidth utilized by different frequency
`blocks, and then the teaching of Hwang at the far right which
`shows that the overall operating bandwidth of the system can
`actually be varied as desired.
`And it is demonstrated there so that you can see
`that the core-band, which is designated on the far left, is
`smaller than the smallest operating channel bandwidth as
`shown through Hwang.
`Next slide, please. So what is Patent Owner's
`position with respect to this? Their position is that, as seen in
`figure 17, BCH and FCH span the entire width of Yamaura's
`20 megahertz channel, as does the ACH, which is not even
`shown to include a narrow band. And they cite for that
`proposition to the testimony of Dr. Haas, citing the language
`of BCH is a bandwidth of the channel.
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`
`Well, that is just incorrect. That is not what Dr.
`Haas is referring to. We have highlighted his testimony here.
`He is actually referring to figure 2 of the '431 patent, not to
`Yamaura and its BCH.
`He is saying if you look, just to make it more --
`there is not a good picture here, but if we look, for example,
`on figure 2 you have the BCH, which is a bandwidth of the
`channel.
`
`Next slide, please, slide 21 of Exhibit 1023. Here
`is figure 2 of the '431 patent. Yes, it says BCH but it is B
`subscript CH, and it stands for the bandwidth of the channel.
`That is not the same as the BCH being discussed in Yamaura.
`Dr. Haas' testimony does not support their position and it is
`completely irrelevant as to what is the showing of Yamaura.
`Next slide, please. In addition, Patent Owner
`provides this illustration from their expert Dr. Zeger, where
`he is outlining what the broadcast burst time period is. It
`includes those first four time segments.
`And he is indicating that in his view, since it is
`described in Yamaura, that part of the control signals are sent
`in the narrow band, the SC1, SC2, going to the core-band, but
`the remaining signals are supposed to be sent outside that
`narrow band, and it is his view that it has got to be above and
`below SC1 and SC2 in those time slots.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`
`Well, during the deposition we asked him, is that
`shown in Yamaura? We have got the text here: Does
`Yamaura explicitly say or teach anywhere that control signals
`are transmitted outside of SC1 and SC2 during the broadcast
`preamble, BCH and FCH time periods?
`And Dr. Zeger recognized, no, Yamaura does not
`explicitly say that, but implicitly teaches it, as he explained.
`So there is no express disclosure for what he is
`describing here and it is merely his implicit attempt at
`explaining the patent. Next slide, please.
`JUDGE JAMESON LEE: Why is the area between
`SC1 and SC2 called the core-band?
`MR. LOWES: Why is it called the core-band?
`JUDGE JAMESON LEE: Yes. Why do you call it
`the core-band? I know the reference doesn't call that the
`core-band.
`MR. LOWES: No, they call it the narrow band.
`JUDGE JAMESON LEE: Right.
`MR. LOWES: Right. The patent refers to it as the
`core-band. Here it is the narrow band.
`JUDGE JAMESON LEE: Is this simply by
`definition?
`MR. LOWES: No, it is an attempt to put it in
`terms of the patent, the claims.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`
`JUDGE JAMESON LEE: Are you saying that
`because the core-band is the smallest segment that you need to
`send control signals, and because SC1 and SC2 are the
`boundaries within which you send the control signals and,
`therefore, the area spanned by the two is the core-band?
`MR. LOWES: Yes, that would be correct.
`JUDGE JAMESON LEE: Isn't that a little
`
`circular?
`
`MR. LOWES: No, Your Honor. Yamaura is all
`about having a very small bandwidth to send control signals.
`Here it is SC1, SC2, and they call it the narrow band. And to
`put it in terms of the patent, the patent requires not just that
`there be a narrow band but that it be smaller than the
`available operating channel bandwidths. And we
`demonstrated --
`JUDGE JAMESON LEE: That I understand. But
`the limitation in the claim is sending the broadcast channel
`within the core-band.
`MR. LOWES: Correct.
`JUDGE JAMESON LEE: You seem to define the
`broadcast channels also by SC1 and SC2.
`MR. LOWES: Correct.
`JUDGE JAMESON LEE: If you do it that way it
`sounds circular.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`
`MR. LOWES: A broadcast channel is defined by
`two elements. One is time. So where in time are you within
`the frame. And then the other is how much spectrum are you
`using, how much bandwidth. And so the core-band defines
`how much spectrum is being used, and then in this case BCH
`defines the time period.
`JUDGE JOHN LEE: Maybe to try to approach this
`a slightly different way and help us understand better, one of
`the things that I understand Patent Owner to be pointing to
`when they look at figure 17 and your interpretation of figure
`17, is that in the figure the -- I will call it a column, but the
`BCH column, right, that time slot is depicted as spanning the
`entirety of the bandwidth, the entirety of the 20 megahertz
`band